PRIVATE BUSINESS

Broads Authority Bill (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.
	 To be read the Third time on Thursday 6 March.
	Bournemouth Borough Council Bill  [Lords] (By Order)
	 Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on  Thursday 6 March.
	Canterbury City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 6 March.
	Leeds City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 6 March.
	London Local Authorities (Shopping Bags) Bill  (By Order)
	 Order for Second Reading read.
	Hon. Members: Object.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 6 March.
	Manchester City Council Bill  [Lords] (By Order)
	 Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 6 March.
	Nottingham City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 6 March.
	Reading Borough Council Bill  (By Order)
	 Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 6 March.

Oral Answers to Questions

BUSINESS, ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM

The Secretary of State was asked—

Regulatory Regimes

Gordon Banks: What steps he plans to take to improve his Department's communication of changes in regulatory regimes to businesses.

Patrick McFadden: My Department is working closely with business to communicate the Government's regulatory reform programme. The Government have introduced two common commencement dates for regulations. In October last year, 200,000 businesses received simple guidance to support the changes coming in on the common commencement date. On 6 April this year, we plan to reach 1 million businesses with user-friendly summaries.

Gordon Banks: With my business background, I share my hon. Friend's aspirations in that field, but has he seen the recent press release from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce highlighting that the cost of regulation to business in Scotland has risen by £600 million to £4.2 billion in the past year, despite the Government's better regulation agenda and the Department's simplification plans? Does he agree that what we need is better regulation, not more regulation?

Patrick McFadden: We take the better regulation agenda very seriously. That is why we published the simplification plans, which detail some 700 measures across 19 Departments and agencies that will save some £3.5 billion by 2010. Some of the regulations detailed in the Chambers of Commerce burdens barometer report, from which I think he was reading, have significant benefits for the public, including the working time regulations as well as regulations on the child trust fund, disabled access to transport and so on. We take the business burden very seriously. That is why we produced the simplification plans and are acting in Europe on that agenda.

Philip Hollobone: Low-tax, high-enterprise economies, particularly those in the far east, are powering ahead because the burden of Government regulation there is low and decreasing. What efforts has the Department taken to send civil servants to see how other nations do such things rather better than the United Kingdom?

Patrick McFadden: In a globalised economy, we keep a close eye on regulatory regimes around the world. That is why the UK Government are leading the debate in Europe on better regulation and have been instrumental in the European Union's adoption of a target to reduce the administrative burdens on business resulting from EU legislation. We are conscious of the fact that it is not just a UK agenda but an international one.

Jim Devine: On improving communication within the Department, will my hon. Friend ensure that the appropriate Minister writes to me and other concerned MPs who were involved in the Farepak scandal? The report was due to be completed at the end of last month, and a briefing from the Department would be helpful.

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are conscious of the impact of the Farepak affair on constituents throughout the country. The Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), leads on that issue, and I understand that the report should be published around Easter.

Internet Fraud

David Kidney: What steps he is taking to prevent internet fraud originating overseas.

Gareth Thomas: We are talking to internet service providers about harmful content, including about what work they are doing to prevent internet fraud. The Office of Fair Trading is providing advice to consumers on how better to protect themselves, and UK law enforcement authorities are collaborating with police forces overseas to try to cut the problem off at source.

David Kidney: Staffordshire trading standards has a brilliant scheme whereby it trains volunteer watchdogs to protect their local communities. One small sign of its success is that it was a volunteer who raised the following issue with me. Has the Department noticed the incidence of foreign fraudsters using website addresses that end in ".co.uk", which misleads innocent dupes in the UK into thinking that they are trading with someone in this country, and are therefore protected by this country's laws? When they have handed over their money, they find that it has disappeared somewhere overseas, and they have no recourse. Can anything be done about the use of ".co.uk"?

Gareth Thomas: A series of initiatives is in place to try to give consumers better protection and to raise their awareness of the scams that my hon. Friend describes. He is right to pay tribute to the work of trading standards. We have worked with trading standards teams through the scambusters initiative in three pilot areas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform recently announced funding to roll out the work of scambusters across the country. That work will focus on local problems, but it will also help to tackle internet fraud of the type that my hon. Friend describes.

James Brokenshire: Part of the problem in dealing with international internet fraud is the need to promote closer international co-operation. The Government signed the cybercrime convention in 2001 to promote closer cross-border working on the issue, but seven years later they have not even started to ratify the treaty. Why not?

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that stronger collaboration is needed, both across Europe and more generally, if we are to protect UK consumers from internet fraud. He may not be aware that there is now a network of consumer centres across the European Union, with which we work closely to help to tackle problems that our constituents face in their dealings overseas. Issues to do with internet fraud are being looked into under that regime, too.

Energy Tariffs

Paul Rowen: What steps he is taking to introduce social tariffs for vulnerable energy consumers.

Malcolm Wicks: We have no plans at present to introduce mandatory social tariffs, but as the Secretary of State has said, we do not rule it out, should it become necessary. In our energy White Paper, we made it clear that energy suppliers should put in place social programmes to help the most vulnerable. Energy suppliers have responded by increasing the value of their programmes from £40 million to £56 million this winter, benefiting some 700,000 households and taking an estimated 70,000 out of fuel poverty. I recently had a meeting with all six major supply companies, which the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs attended because of his Department's concern about fuel poverty.

Paul Rowen: Is the Minister aware that the criteria that Powergen uses for its "stay warm" social tariff have recently been changed, with the result that many consumers are paying increased prices? The company spends £4.4 million a year on that social tariff, yet it spends £32 million a year sponsoring the FA cup. Does the Minister think that that is a good use of priorities, and of the profits that the company makes?

Malcolm Wicks: I am not going to attack a great working-class game, and make comparisons with football. As we made clear at our recent meeting, we welcome the social programmes and tariffs that are in place. Given rising public and parliamentary concern about energy prices we feel that all the supply companies have an obligation to do more for the most vulnerable, but of course the Government also play their part. Indeed, since 2000, the Government have spent some £20 billion on fuel poverty measures, benefits and programmes of different kinds. However, there is a role for private companies, too.

Tony Lloyd: The measures that the Government have already taken are important, but if we are genuinely to protect vulnerable groups, perhaps the biggest single thing to do now is to stop the energy companies—the big six to which the Minister spoke, which have been accused directly of collusion and price fixing—effectively robbing the consumer. Is not reference to the competition authorities important, so that the public, and vulnerable groups in particular, know that they are not being ripped off and robbed by those energy companies?

Malcolm Wicks: All the independent analysis shows that we have the most competitive energy market in the European Union, and I can verify that through independent reports. However, I understand the public concern. Ofgem has announced that it will conduct an inquiry into the competitive market to make sure that it is functioning well. It is not complacent, and neither are we. If there is evidence of collusion, it should be presented to the regulator. The companies meet to discuss a range of issues, and I sometimes join those meetings, as does the Secretary of State. I do not feel that there is any evidence of collusion, but, if there is, it should be taken to the regulator.

Michael Weir: The amount that energy companies spend on social tariffs differs vastly. Is the Minister aware that e.on and other companies recently announced that they are considering introducing guarantors or deposits for new customers before they will take them on? Will that not impact greatly on the most vulnerable groups and prevent people from switching suppliers?

Malcolm Wicks: All of us are concerned to protect the most vulnerable. The poor often end up paying more per unit of fuel because of prepayment meters, which is another matter that I have raised with the supply companies. My advice is that the hon. Gentleman should report his concerns to the regulator.

John Grogan: As the Third Reading and Report stages of the Energy Bill approach, does my hon. Friend think there might be a majority in the House for an appropriately crafted amendment that put a statutory obligation on energy companies to provide a minimum level of social tariffs?

Malcolm Wicks: Having just come from the Committee considering the Energy Bill, I like the idea of the Report stage almost being upon us. I only wish that were the case, as I listen to my speeches in Committee. Of course I recognise that there is widespread support in the House for greater action on social tariffs. My concern is to persuade the supply companies to move forward voluntarily. We are making progress, but there is more to do. There is a concern that if we mandated social tariffs, that might be the end of the matter: the companies would do that but no more. There would be no grounds for innovation, and that could be the downside of a mandatory approach.

Postal Services

Mark Lancaster: If he will make a statement on the future of postal services.

Michael Fabricant: What his policy is on the future of postal services; and if he will make a statement.

John Hutton: The Government are committed to an open and competitive UK postal services market. However, the market conditions for all postal service operators are changing rapidly, and in December 2007 I announced an independent review of the postal sector under Richard Hooper. The review will assess the impacts to date of liberalisation of the UK postal services market, explore trends in future market development and consider how best to maintain the universal service obligation.

Mark Lancaster: The consultation for post office closures in Milton Keynes is not due to start until July, but last November the Post Office inadvertently published on its website the five post offices that it has already earmarked for closure in Milton Keynes, clearly underlining the local view that any consultation is a sham—a view perhaps shared by some Ministers. Given that I have campaigned hard for I before E, or infrastructure before expansion, why, at a time when the Government are forcing Milton Keynes to expand, are they forcing our post office network to shrink?

John Hutton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be a full and proper consultation process on closures. One inescapable fact must be addressed by all of us in the House—that the Post Office is losing business. It has lost 4 million customers a week, and we must recognise that. It has lost that business partly because of the internet and people doing their business online, and partly because the Post Office itself lost business—for example, in relation to TV licences from the BBC. We have a simple choice. Either we go on subsidising the Post Office at a cost to the taxpayer, or we address the losses now and make sure that the Post Office runs on a proper commercial basis for the future. I would have thought Conservative Members understood that.

Michael Fabricant: The Secretary of State will know that in the past 10 years there have been 3,200 closures. He knows that another 2,500 post offices are under threat. I join the Secretary of State for Justice, the Home Secretary and others in the Cabinet who have all said that the importance of post offices should not be underestimated, in particular post offices such as Longdon and Hammerwich in my constituency, which are the only shops in those small villages. If they close, it will have a devastating effect on the rural economy.

John Hutton: One of the matters that must be considered in the closure programme is whether there are viable alternatives to closure for local sub-post offices. If the hon. Gentleman and his constituents want to make such proposals to the review team, I would strongly recommend that he do so, and that all my right hon. and hon. Friends take the same advantage of the consultation process to make such representations.

Peter Soulsby: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that Postwatch is seen as totally ineffective in representing the needs of residential and commercial customers of the Post Office, as it was in my constituency in the closure of Francis street and Walnut street post offices? Will he take steps to ensure that Postwatch is made truly independent and give it the teeth to make sure that it can represent the needs of customers effectively?

John Hutton: Postwatch will shortly become part of the new National Consumer Council, and I very much hope that in that guise it will go on representing the consumers of postal services.

Brian Jenkins: My right hon. Friend will remember that last time round in the south of Tamworth every single sub-postmaster took the money and ran, shutting six sub-post offices. The plan was no longer in the hands of the Post Office, but in those of the sub-postmasters. Will he give me an assurance that this time there will be more structure to the outcome?

John Hutton: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, because for the first time we will have new national access criteria, which will ensure that all our constituents have convenient and timely access to postal services.

Peter Luff: As the Secretary of State reflects on his response to the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee's report, which I am glad to say he has agreed to expedite and which I welcome unreservedly, may I help him by suggesting that it has one main theme and one qualification? First, the consultation process is not working as it should do, because it is largely constructed for the benefit of the Government, Post Office Ltd and sub-postmasters, not for the community served by the sub-post offices. Secondly, is he aware of the growing concern being expressed to me by sub-postmasters that the report significantly underestimated the harassment and pressure that they were being put under by Post Office Ltd during the public consultation stage?

John Hutton: I am not in favour of harassment and pressure. If the hon. Gentleman and his Committee have examples of that I am prepared to look into them. I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman and the work of his Committee, and I am sure that he will be glad to know that we will respond properly and fully to his Committee's report in due course.

David Taylor: I am sure that the Secretary of State is concerned about the impact on small businesses in the communities that are losing their post offices. They will have further to go, longer to queue, and fewer places to weigh and dispatch small packages in the eBay era. Is he concerned about that? Are we not seeing a Gadarene rush for deregulation and competition, showing every sign of damaging the small business sector and the universal service obligation as well?

John Hutton: As I said in my answer, I want to see a competitive postal market with high-quality services, for both domestic and business users. I would say two things to my hon. Friend in particular. For the first time we are providing an underpinning payment of £150 million a year, which we have guaranteed for the next five years, to support the delivery of postal services in rural areas, and on top of that there will be new outreach services, serving the needs of my hon. Friend's rural constituents and businesses. The Post Office provides an important service for small businesses, which I want to ensure continues in the future.

Tony Baldry: What kind of community consultation is it when Cherwell district council is told that however good a case is put to retain Grimsbury or Orchard Way post offices in Banbury, or Kings End in Bicester, regardless of what it does, come what may, four post offices will close? That is not fair consultation, that is fraudulent consultation, and people are getting increasingly angry as a consequence.

John Hutton: We should look at all the alternatives. If there are local suggestions about how losses for the Post Office may be avoided, we should look at them. However, the Post Office has a responsibility to us and to the taxpayer to run the network of sub-post offices efficiently, effectively and to a profit for the taxpayer, not a whacking loss. That is a responsibility that, however much the hon. Gentleman might like to avoid it, Ministers cannot avoid. We have a responsibility to run the business properly, and we will discharge that responsibility.

Mark Williams: The 63 post offices in my constituency of Ceredigion are awaiting the outcome of their futures, which they will hear about next week. Is there not still a great inconsistency in timing? The legislation is completely against the spirit of the Sustainable Communities Bill.
	What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his counterparts in the National Assembly for Wales? There will be a sledgehammer blow on our post offices next week, but it has been announced that next year there will be a re-enactment of the post office development fund in Wales. When that fund comes into effect, our post offices will have gone.

John Hutton: The issues to be addressed in Wales are the same as those in any other part of the United Kingdom. The post office network has to stop making a loss and start making a proper return for the taxpayer. We have regular and proper discussions with our colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government, and we will continue to have them.

Sarah Teather: Last year, bonuses awarded to the board of the Royal Mail Group totalled £4.7 million, more than 10 per cent. of the total savings that the Government want to make from closing 2,500 of our post offices. Given that the most vulnerable use our post offices most, does the Secretary of State think that that is an example of robbing the poor to pay the rich?

John Hutton: No, I do not. There have to be proper incentives for the senior management team at the Post Office; ultimately, such matters are the responsibility of the Royal Mail board.

Charles Hendry: Is the reality not that the closure programme has been forced on the Post Office by the Government? The Government have determined that 2,500 post offices will close; the Government have set the access criteria that will decide which ones are put forward for closure; the Government have forced through an unacceptable consultation programme against Cabinet Office guidelines; and, worst of all, the Government have insisted that if one post office is saved, another in the same location must close in its place. Yet Ministers are now arguing why their constituencies should be exempt.
	The Secretary of State is a fair and decent man. Does he not understand why people will be so angry about a Government who decide to force through a massively unpopular closure programme, when members of that Government believe that only other people's constituencies should be affected?

John Hutton: No, I do not accept that. The one thing that I do accept is that the closure programme is unpopular—of course it is. It is a very significant change to push through at this moment in time, but it has to be made if the Post Office business is to enjoy a secure and proper future.
	It is right and proper, however, that individual Members of this House should, on behalf of their constituents, make representations to the Post Office about the closure programme. There are those who say that that is not responsible; that is patently ridiculous.

Civil Engineering Industry

Andrew Robathan: What assessment he has made of the contribution of the civil engineering industry to the development of UK infrastructure.

Gareth Thomas: Civil engineering and the construction of highways and water projects account for nearly 13 per cent. of construction output, which stood at more than £113 billion in 2006. The total market value of UK financial and non-financial assets in the same year was £6.5 trillion. Of that, civil engineering works accounted for just over 11 per cent.

Andrew Robathan: I do not think that that reply was terribly helpful. Has the Minister seen the briefing from the Institution of Civil Engineers, "The State of the Nation"? I am sure that he was sent it. It states:
	"Unpredictable, stop-start procurement by government is having a damaging effect on the civil engineering industry and holding back development of UK infrastructure.
	Poor planning means public sector projects often have to compete with each other for resources, increasing the cost to the taxpayer."
	Is the ICE right or wrong?

Gareth Thomas: In his foreword to the report, the president of the ICE stated:
	"There has rarely been a better time to be a civil engineer. The UK is entering one of its strongest periods of infrastructure investment, and the civil engineering industry is experiencing one of its busiest times."
	I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the whole report.

Mark Prisk: Given that, as the Minister has just mentioned, civil engineering and construction are so important, it is vital that the relationship between the Government and the industry should be close and trusting. Yet Baroness Vadera, the current ministerial incumbent, has a record on Metronet and on Network Rail that leads many people in the industry simply not to trust her. Given the industry's importance, to which the Minister has just alluded, does it not deserve better than a Minister who is neither suitable for the job nor accountable to this House?

Gareth Thomas: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, the line of people from industry queuing up to see Baroness Vadera and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, suggests that the industry continues to have considerable confidence in this Government. Perhaps that explains this further comment by the ICE:
	"The outlook for the"—
	civil engineering—
	"industry has rarely been more buoyant and exciting".

Ashok Kumar: Has the Minister seen the report that was published last year by the Royal Academy of Engineering, entitled "Educating Engineers for the 21st Century"? One of its main conclusions was that in 10 years' time we will need far more high-calibre engineers than we are producing at the moment. Will the Minister meet me and members of the Royal Academy of Engineering to address those issues and to explore further what is in the report?

Gareth Thomas: I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and anybody he wishes to bring with him to discuss that. Significant work is already being done to increase the opportunity for young people to go into civil engineering. I am sure that he will be aware of the establishment of the national skills academy for construction and of the programme that the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills has under way to invest in modern apprenticeships and a new diploma course. Of course we cannot be complacent about the skills that we need for this country's economy in future; on that basis, I would be happy to meet him and those whom he wants to bring with him.

Temporary/Agency Workers

Richard Ottaway: What assessment he has made of the contribution of temporary and agency workers to the economy.

John Hutton: Agency and temporary work is a relatively small but important part of our labour market, providing additional choices over working patterns for many workers. Companies have made clear to Ministers the importance that they attach to the flexibility that agency workers can often provide in handling peaks and troughs in work load. That flexibility can help to create extra jobs and provides a significant opportunity for people on benefits, in particular, to re-enter the labour market.

Richard Ottaway: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but why does he not admit that the British Government are blocking measures on this in the European Union? We can agree that temporary work provides flexible work options, helps people into permanent jobs and provides opportunities for the young, the over-55s and ethnic minorities, but the question is whether he has the guts to take on the Luddite, red-flag-singing comrades on his own Benches who argue otherwise.

John Hutton: The hon. Gentleman should not tempt me on those issues. I must say that I am not sure that I would get beyond the first line of the "Red Flag" myself.  [ Interruption. ] I thank my hon. Friends for a bit of prompting from the back, but I think that I will resist the temptation to join in the singing.
	On the agency workers directive, we have always accepted that abuses take place in relation to the employment of agency workers, and we want to deal with those, particularly in the context of "permatemps", who are taken on almost as full-time workers but not given the same access to the employer's terms and conditions as full-time staff. That is a genuine issue that should concern all Members of this House. However, we have not been able to agree the text of the current directive because it is not right for the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman asked me to acknowledge that, and I am happy to do so. The directive needs to be changed to provide greater flexibility for the UK, and that is what we are determined to achieve.

Brian Iddon: I am one of those red-flag-singing comrades, and if the House would like a rendition now, I will do my best.
	On a serious note, one of my relatives was recently badly exploited by so-called agencies operating in the construction industry who, in my opinion, are nothing more than gangmasters operating under another name. Will my right hon. Friend do his best to root out those poor agencies, which are giving all the reputable agencies an extremely bad name?

John Hutton: I am happy to ensure that the existing legislation is properly enforced, as it must be—that is why we have doubled the number of inspectors going in to support the regulation of employment agencies. A lot of the examples of abuse that Members on my side of the House— [ Interruption . ] I mean our side of the House—have been bringing forward are violations of existing health and safety or employment law, so we should focus our resources on dealing with that as a first priority. I very much hope that there is a way forward on the directive. We are working very hard to secure an agreement on it in Europe, because that is ultimately where we need to do so.

Lorely Burt: In light of the Secretary of State's comments, I am sure that he agrees that the practice of some employers of keeping agency and temporary workers on such contracts for years on end is a scandal. However, the Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill will damage the interests of most workers and businesses alike, so will the Government work urgently to eradicate this abuse, either in Committee—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Lady, and I have mentioned this before, that reading off a supplementary question is not permissible. That was a bit too long.

John Hutton: I repeat to the hon. Lady what I said earlier: we recognise that there are abuses in relation to permatemps. Those abuses should be addressed, and they can be if we get a sensible agreement on the agency workers directive. For those reasons, and others that I could go into, the Government are not supporting the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). We are hoping instead to reach proper agreement in the European Union.

Jonathan Djanogly: Following more than 120 of his union-inspired hon. Friends rebelling against the Government last Friday, the Minister ran scared into announcing a commission to review laws on agency workers. Yet, in Europe, he still claims to stand firm against losing our competitive advantage on agency workers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot very well tell off a Back Bencher, and then find that a Front Bencher has gone on to make a speech. The hon. Gentleman is putting a supplementary so that is what he should do.

Jonathan Djanogly: Is there some hidden agenda here or is this another example of the Government dithering?

John Hutton: I think— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I see that the hon. Gentleman is protesting. Surely the Front Benchers know how to put a supplementary question.  [ Interruption. ] Then do it. As to stepping up and starting to read off a speech, it has to be remembered that it is not only the Front Bench that gets privileges in this House, but every Back Bencher. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench cannot do it right, I have to intervene on them.

John Hutton: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that our proposals for a commission to try to resolve those issues were raised several weeks ago, and if we can reach an agreement on this issue, that is the right way forward. Decent employers recognise that there has been abuse and they want to work with us to tackle it. It does the UK no favours to be accused of not tackling such abuses. The simple choice for us is this: if we think that there is a problem, we should try to solve it. We think that there is a problem, but the directive has to be right before the UK can sign up to it.

Nuclear Power

Andrew Rosindell: How many expressions of interest in developing new nuclear power stations he has received from commercial entities since publication of the White Paper on energy policy; and if he will make a statement.

John Hutton: There has been a very encouraging response from industry to the nuclear White Paper. I have had several meetings with energy companies and potential manufacturers to discuss the opportunities to build new nuclear power stations in the UK. My Department will be organising a major nuclear investors conference in London later in the spring.

Andrew Rosindell: The Minister will know that the nuclear installations inspectorate has expressed great concern about the UK being able to maintain, train and gather the right sort of people in order to assess and approve future installations in this country. Bearing in mind that so many of our skilled workers in this area are seeking work abroad, how does he intend to reverse that worrying trend?

John Hutton: The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point. He will be aware that we recently established a new national skills academy for the nuclear industry, which I think will make a positive contribution. The nuclear installations inspectorate is currently seeking to recruit additional inspectors so that it can complete the generic design assessment process in a timely fashion. We have had a positive response to the recent adverts: more than 160 qualified applicants have applied for those posts. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has raised a fair point and we are trying to address those concerns.

Paul Flynn: Is the Secretary of State concerned that we learned this week that the already immense cost of £73 billion to clear up the current legacy of nuclear waste is probably an underestimate, and that taxpayers are likely to have a bill of at least £3,000 per family? The nuclear industry has never paid its way; it has always been an economic basket case. Why are we so committed to future nuclear power technology when we know that it will fix another financial albatross around taxpayers' necks?

John Hutton: We support a new generation of nuclear power generation in this country for all the reasons that we set out in the nuclear White Paper, about which I made a statement to the House a few weeks ago. The economics of nuclear power has changed dramatically because of the science of climate change and the introduction of carbon pricing. It would be stupid to deny the United Kingdom and future generations of citizens in the UK the same access to reliable electricity that this generation and previous generations have enjoyed. Nuclear can play a role in future; we should be prepared to give it that opportunity.

Julie Kirkbride: The Secretary of State and I share the aspiration of private sector nuclear build in the UK. From his Select Committee appearances, I know that we all agree that that must happen as speedily as possible, given that our energy supplies will be depleted in the next decade or so. Will he help the House and set out a rough time scale for when he hopes that actual building of the first new nuclear power plant will commence?

John Hutton: I hope that that will be done in the next three or four years, and that it will be possible to make such progress. It is in the UK's national interest to move ahead with the programme as quickly as possible. We have a responsibility to deal with the past—the taxpayer must discharge that—but we have made it clear that, in future, private sector operators will be responsible for waste disposal and decommissioning. That is a fundamental difference in our new nuclear power proposals. I hope that they have the hon. Lady's support and that of her Committee.

Hugh Bayley: There is public concern about the possibility of radiological leaks from nuclear power stations but less public awareness of the dangers of carbon emissions from fossil fuel power stations. Will the Secretary of State commission research to compare the environmental impact on people and their livelihoods of fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable generation, so that our debate can be better informed?

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion—let me consider that point.
	I hope that we all agree that carbon dioxide is a serious pollutant. It is changing the climate of our planet and it is imperative to get on with tackling the problem of climate change. I strongly believe, on the basis of science and economics, that nuclear power can play a large role in helping us meet the challenge of climate change. I should also make it clear that the UK nuclear industry has an exceptional safety record.

Fuel Poverty

Robert Smith: What estimate he has made of the effects on the number of households in fuel poverty of the changes in energy prices in the winter of 2007-08.

Malcolm Wicks: After years of progress, rising energy prices during the 2007-08 winter will result in upward pressures on the numbers in fuel poverty. Of course, the numbers will also be affected by increases in incomes and energy efficiency. The most recent estimate that we have produced for the number of households in fuel poverty is for 2005, when there were 2.5 million fuel poor households in the UK. Figures for 2006 will be available later this year.

Robert Smith: Does the Minister accept that his answer about the increase in fuel poverty this winter suggests that the Government rely too much on cheap fuel as a means of tackling the problem? Should not they consider improving Warm Front and Warm Deal to ensure that more households are permanently taken out of fuel poverty? To that end, has he considered the windfalls from VAT on energy and from the European emissions trading scheme for generators?

Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman knows that those are matters for the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not me. After the years of progress, with better housing standards and energy efficiency measures, which have helped some 2 million households, and social security measures, including winter fuel payments, rising energy costs are knocking us off course. Of course, I recognise that and we looking hard at what can be done. As I said earlier, we are discussing with companies their obligations in the difficult circumstances that we face.

David Chaytor: Is not part of the solution to the problem the increasing use of rising tariffs, whereby the price of each unit of electricity increases with consumption? That makes things easier for low-income households, rewards households that have invested in energy efficiency measures and generally improves understanding of the imperative to reduce CO2 emissions. What possible argument can there be against requiring all suppliers to structure their tariffs on the rising tariff basis?

Malcolm Wicks: I am sure that people will consider that suggestion. Moving forward, the Government are committed by, I think, 2014 to building only zero-carbon housing. That is crucial. We are also considering the possibility that in future the supply company, instead of incentivising householders to use more gas and electricity, will incentivise them to use less, by reducing demand. That puts another premium on energy efficiency and renewables. We are looking hard at all such issues, and my hon. Friend raises an important question.

Topical Questions

Andrew MacKay: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

John Hutton: My Department is committed to ensuring the prosperity and success of British business in an increasingly competitive global economy.

Andrew MacKay: Does the Secretary of State not understand that those such as me who have a high regard for him as a Minister are deeply disappointed that he does not realise that the public are desperately upset about the way in which the sub-post office closures have taken place? The public are completely aware that the closures are Government driven, by a Cabinet decision, and are particularly irritated that the Home Secretary, with a marginal seat that she is likely to lose at the next election, is not taking collective responsibility.

John Hutton: Ministers do accept collective responsibility for the decisions that have been made in relation to the Post Office. However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I, too, have a high personal regard, would be the first to accept that it is the right of every Member of the House to make representations on behalf of their constituents, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has sought to do.

David Taylor: Despite Ofgem's repeated assertions that we benefit from some of lowest energy prices in Europe, we are in fact No. 3 in the European Union if we discount for the impact of taxation. Why is the Competition Commission not being asked to review the situation whereby a handful of energy companies—that is all that is left of the 15 or so companies post-privatisation—are creating such difficulties for our constituents with their oligopolistic behaviour?

John Hutton: I am sure that my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in such matters, will know that Ofgem recently announced that it would look into the issue and that the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is committed to conducting an inquiry, too. There should be a proper argument about the issue. There are significant public concerns about energy prices and it is right that they should be looked into.

John Barrett: The Secretary of State will be aware that there are about 3,000 people in each constituency with visual impairment. What is his Department doing to communicate with such people and ensure that British business communicates with them, too?

John Hutton: I will probably have to write to the hon. Gentleman to give him a detailed answer to that question. However, the Department makes every effort to ensure that it communicates properly with all our stakeholders and with people who use our services and rely on the information that we provide.

Paul Flynn: When can we get a bit more oomph and conviction behind our policies for exploiting the one greatly neglected source of power that we are fortunate enough to have in this country, namely marine and tidal power? Although there is enthusiasm for the Severn barrage, it might be delayed by environmental objections. Should we not look into the many other ways of exploiting a source of power that is carbon-free, that does not leave a legacy of waste and that is eternal and British?

Malcolm Wicks: We are a leading nation when it comes to such technology. We have put a great deal into the research and development phase and we have a programme of some £40 million to £50 million for the deployment of marine, which is waiting for successful applicants. The reform of the renewables obligation gives added incentive to both wave and tidal power. I think that my hon. Friend knows that the technology is in its infancy; however, for the reasons that he suggested, it has enormous potential, not least around our British Isles.

Alan Duncan: Eight years ago, the then Secretary of State intervened to block a bid for Rover, preferring instead one that ultimately guaranteed that company's closure. What lessons have been learned, and is the Secretary of State fully satisfied that the actions of his predecessor and Department were in the best interests of that company?

John Hutton: Yes, I think that Ministers always act in the way that the hon. Gentleman has described. I have absolute personal confidence in and respect for the judgment of my immediate predecessors who have done this job. In relation to the Rover inquiry, which I am sure will be of concern to the hon. Gentleman and to everyone else, we obviously want to see the report produced as quickly as possible, but it is ultimately a matter for the inspectors as to how quickly that can be done.

Alan Duncan: The Rover inquiry has been going on now for two years, and it is costing more than £80,000 a week. It looks more and more like a concerted attempt to disguise the incompetence of the former Secretary of State and the seriously questionable conduct of the so-called Phoenix four. Can the Secretary of State tell us when the report will be published, and will he give a guarantee that he will urge its publication without any further delay?

John Hutton: I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman has impugned the integrity of the inspectors who are doing this inquiry. They are going about it in a thorough and professional manner—this is a complex set of issues—and working to produce their report as quickly as possible. I am surprised at his line of questioning.

David Burrowes: Given that the final decision on London's post office closure programme will be announced after the London elections, and that the post office Minister's own constituency closure programme will be one of the last to be announced, on 27 August, will the Minister assure me that the voices of the hundreds of my constituents who are campaigning to save their local post offices in Palmers Green and Hadley Wood will be heard, and that this is not a centrally determined, politically determined process?

John Hutton: I can give the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that assurance. We have set up a process for local consultation, and he has just outlined the extent of the local engagement in that process in his constituency. It is important, however, to respect one fundamental principle about ministerial behaviour, which is that Ministers do not make announcements during election periods. That has always been the principle, and it applies just as much in relation to this issue as to any other. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to depart from it on this occasion, perhaps he will also support any positive announcements affecting his constituency that Ministers make during future election periods.

Vincent Cable: Following the Secretary of State's emphasis on commercial reality in the Post Office, will he explain why commercially successful, profitable branches are being closed in order to meet a national quota based on generous incentives through the redundancy package?

Patrick McFadden: The judgment of the commercial success or profitability of any branch has to take into account a number of factors. These include not only the payments made to the sub-postmaster but the central costs borne by Post Office Ltd for IT support and the secure and complex cash handling and cash delivery processes. Taking all those factors into account, three out of four post offices in the present network are run at a cost to Post Office Ltd rather than a profit.

Gordon Banks: Returning to the theme of regulation, and in particular to the Government's internet portal, are there any plans to introduce industry sector-related portals within that portal? Will the Government also address the issue of how to get information to very small businesses that might not be members of trade associations?

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is an important task to be done in communicating information to businesses. That is why more and more Government business-related content is being concentrated on the Business Link website, which I would recommend to any small business. It provides very good advice on a whole range of Government policies, and businesses might find that picking up advice that is freely available on the Business Link website, rather than paying for it, saves them money.

Henry Bellingham: Can the Secretary of State confirm that it is now his Department's policy to be increasingly supportive of offshore wind farms while becoming increasingly sceptical about onshore wind turbines? Is he aware that, in my Norfolk constituency, 500 wind turbines are now either under construction or planned for sites in the Wash or along the Norfolk coast? That is a large enough amount to achieve critical mass and to make a real contribution to green energy, unlike the onshore clusters, which impose a big cost on the environment for very little gain.

Malcolm Wicks: We are committed to the expansion of renewable energy, and I think that Opposition Front Benchers are as well—at least, in principle. We need renewable energy from different sources and onshore wind farms are important. There is a proper planning process, and when proposals come to our Department, we sometimes say yes, and sometimes we say no in view of local objections. I believe that we will see a massive extension of offshore wind farms in future, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman indicates.

David Chaytor: On the question of the accuracy or otherwise of this week's report on the costing of radioactive waste management, will the Secretary of State confirm that if there were any new nuclear build in the UK, the spent fuel from the nuclear power plants would not be reprocessed? Given that the THORP—thermal oxide reprocessing plant—at Sellafield has been closed for much of the last three years, will he give us some indication of what he thinks about the reprocessing industry's future?

John Hutton: My understanding is that none of the prospective nuclear operators is currently working on the assumption that spent fuel will need to be reprocessed. However, it is important to make it clear that that is ultimately a commercial decision for the operators. The regulatory authorities would obviously have to take a view about the safety and environmental issues surrounding any such proposal in the future, but it is our working assumption at the moment that the spent fuel arising from any future nuclear operations will not be reprocessed.

Tony Baldry: What assessment does the Department intend to make of the impact of economic partnership agreements on economic growth and poverty reduction on the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries that are signed up to them?

Gareth Thomas: Given the history of the process of the creation of economic partnership agreements, we have been in discussions with those ACP nations for some years about the economic benefits of signing up. One particular benefit for the non-least developed countries of signing up to an EPA is that they get duty-free and quota-free access to Europe's markets. That is a huge benefit for some of them.

Brian Jenkins: I recently had discussions with Friends of the Earth, which seems to believe that carbon capture from coal-fired power stations, after which the carbon is taken to the redundant oil fields in the North sea, is a technology that is already available and can be taken off the shelf. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made on this technology and clarify the Department's policy on it?

Malcolm Wicks: It is, of course, a crucial technology, but it is in its infancy. I am proud of the fact that the UK is a leading nation when it comes to developing carbon capture and storage; and I am proud that our Government announced a major demonstration project around a coal-fired power station—one of the first projects in the whole world to demonstrate carbon capture and storage. It is a new technology that needs to be proven, but given that the world will be burning huge amounts of coal for a century or more, it is crucial that we get this right—and Britain is leading the way.

Brooks Newmark: The George Yard post office in Braintree is going to be closed in less than two weeks' time, despite not having been involved in the initial Essex consultation. When I raised that matter with the chief executive of the Post Office, he first apologised, but then asked me to keep it in the strictest confidence until he could make an announcement. Does not the Minister agree that consultations on the post office network should be both accurate and public?

Patrick McFadden: Throughout this process, we have emphasised that the consultation relates to how the plans are implemented, not whether there should be closures. Replacement closures sometimes have to be identified because the Post Office is closing post offices that cost significant amounts to run—on average, £18,000 a year for each branch. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but that is the reason why such decisions have to be taken.

Richard Benyon: Notwithstanding the fact that the Post Office got wrong the name of one of the postmistresses in my constituency whose post office is due to close, that same postmistress then applied to have a pay point in the post office when it is removed, but the Post Office has said that it will remove all compensation from that post office if it acts within a year. Does not the Minister think that that adds to the cruelty of the closure programme and illustrates the bovine stupidity with which it has been implemented?

Patrick McFadden: I do not think it is correct to say that Post Office Ltd is removing all compensation from people in those circumstances. The Select Committee discussed the matter when compiling its recent report, and the general secretary of the National Federation of SubPostmasters said he thought it quite right for the taxpayer not to compensate sub-postmasters for business that they were not actually losing because they would replace it the day after closure. There is an adjustment in the compensation to take that into account, but it is not the case that all compensation has been removed.

Business of the House

Theresa May: Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: The business for next week will be as follows.
	Monday 3 March—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the European Union (Amendment) Bill [9th Allotted Day].
	Tuesday 4 March—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the European Union (Amendment) Bill [10th Allotted Day], so far not completed on 3 March.
	Wednesday 5 March—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the European Union (Amendment) Bill [11th Allotted Day] covering clause 8, the schedule, new clauses and new schedules.
	Thursday 6 March—A debate on international women's day.
	Friday 7 March—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 10 March will include the following.
	Monday 10 March—Estimates [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on Northern Rock and banking reform, followed by a debate on London Underground and the public-private partnership agreements.
	At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Tuesday 11 March—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the European Union (Amendment) Bill.
	Wednesday 12 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
	Thursday 13 March—Topical debate: Subject to be announced, followed by continuation of the Budget debate.
	Friday 14 March—Private Members' Bills.
	The House may wish to be reminded that we will rise for the bank holiday at the end of business on Thursday 20 March and return on Tuesday 25 March.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 20 and 27 March will be as follows.
	Thursday 20 March—A debate on creative industries.
	Thursday 27 March—A debate on the report from the Quadripartite Committee on strategic export controls: 2007 Review.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business.
	May we have a debate in Government time on spinal injuries units in the national health service? Last Friday my constituent Baroness de Knayth, who was disabled as a result of spinal injuries and who was a hard-working and much-respected Cross-Bench peer, was taken ill. When she arrived at her local acute hospital, Wexham Park, the hospital did not even have the right sort of bed for a person with her disabilities. The spinal unit at Stoke Mandeville hospital refused to admit her. On Sunday morning, she died. I am sure that the whole House will want to send condolences to her family and friends.
	The House was promised line-by-line consideration of the European Union (Amendment) Bill, but so far we have had a daily average of less than two and a half hours of detailed debate on amendments. That has meant that important amendments concerning such matters as asylum and immigration, borders and visas, defence, and climate change have not been discussed at all. May I repeat the call made last week by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, for an extra day of debate on defence matters?
	During Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, the Prime Minister said
	"this is an amending treaty and not a constitutional treaty. We have said that there is no necessity now to have a referendum."—[ Official Report, 27 February 2008; Vol. 472, c. 1084.]
	I have here an internal document that was sent to Labour Members by the Minister for Europe, which highlights the question
	"Do you expect your constituents to vote for you at the next election knowing that you will have broken an important manifesto pledge".
	May we have a statement from the Prime Minister on why he is forcing Labour MPs to break their promise to the British people?
	Having pushed through the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill and introduced 85 new clauses and 11 new schedules to the Bill after Second Reading, the Government have since removed 52 clauses and nine schedules, including proposals on prostitution. We know that the Government are desperate to get the Bill through before the threatened prison officers' strike, but may we have a statement from the right hon. Lady on the appalling handling of the Bill?
	May we have a debate on Cabinet responsibility? The Cabinet, which includes the Justice Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Culture Secretary, has agreed to close 2,500 post offices. Those very same Ministers are campaigning against post office closures in their constituencies. As a Member with six post offices in my constituency under threat of closure, I oppose the closure programme. Where does the Leader of the House stand?
	Talking about disunity in the Cabinet, was it death sentences for those who wanted to flee, torture and prison sentences for dissidents, gags for the press or jail for homosexuals that made the Leader of the House support Castro? Given this list of atrocities, and the fact that the Prime Minister obviously does not agree with her, will she tell the House if she still believes that Castro was a hero of the left?
	The Government have broken their pledge to the British people, shown utter contempt for the procedures of the House and double standards at the very top. New Prime Minister, same old ways; nothing has changed.

Harriet Harman: I would like to join the right hon. Lady in expressing my condolences to the family of Baroness Darcy de Knayth and I will refer her serious points about the late noble Baroness's care to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and ask him to write to her.
	I remind the right hon. Lady and the House that we have had more debate in Committee on the European Union (Amendment) Bill than we had on the Nice and Amsterdam treaties and the Single European Act put together. The procedure motion had a considerable amount of debate and it is for the House to go through the Bill, as it has done, day in, day out. We are three quarters of the way through the Committee stage, on day eight. There will be further debate, as the House will have heard, next week. It is for hon. Members to decide whether they want to table an amendment on a referendum and it is for the Speaker to choose which amendments to select. It is then for the House to decide.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. She is right; we want clarity about the legal position in relation to strikes in the Prison Service. That has put a time scale on the Bill and added to the consideration of how it is handled not just in this place, but in the House of Lords. She mentioned the withdrawal of the two clauses on prostitution. She will know that we are engaging in what will be a six-month review into how we deal with the demand side of prostitution. It will not be a bad thing to look at how we deal with prostitution of a piece when we have considered the review of how we tackle the demand side of human trafficking.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned post office closures, and she will no doubt have heard some of the discussions during topical questions to Ministers from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. She will know that there are about 14,000 post offices in this country and that there has been a drop in use of post offices because, for example, of the loss of the contract for television licences, because more people are choosing to get their tax discs on line and because more people are opting to have pensions or other benefit payments made by direct debit. Fewer people are using the post office and, therefore, there has been an increase in the taxpayer subsidy. She knows that the framework has been agreed and that up to 2,500 of the 14,000 post offices will be closed. There is the question of which post offices will be closed, and, as my hon. Friends said during Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform questions, there will be a consultation on which post offices are put forward for closure. It is important that that consultation is realistic and that it examines the individual circumstances of each post office, including the deprivation of the local area, transport to nearby post offices and the usage of the post office in question.
	The Conservatives have made yet another unfunded public spending pledge. They say that they do not want any post offices to close, but we have put in a great deal of public subsidy from the taxpayer, whereas their policy is to put in no public subsidy. I will add unfunded commitments on post offices, which I will report to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to the unfunded commitments on defence and health. Those unfunded promises are matched only by the promised tax cuts, and they do not add up.

Nigel Griffiths: Will the Leader of the House comment on supermarkets and others that set the price of a can of lager at 22p, which is at cost, close to cost or below cost? Will she ensure that the Office of Fair Trading allows supermarkets and others to agree a minimum price for such products, which is part of the necessary action to tackle the scourge of alcoholism in this country?

Harriet Harman: I agree with my hon. Friend's point. The issue was the subject of a topical debate before Christmas. Since then, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform have conducted further work, and I will bring my hon. Friend's point to their attention.

Simon Hughes: The Leader of the House has rightly announced that we have had eight days' debate on the European Union (Amendment) Bill and that we will have four more days' debate in the next two weeks. Will she arrange a debate on how an amendment supported by a party that was backed by nearly one quarter of the British electorate at the previous election and by one third as many Members as the other major Opposition party cannot be selected after eight days of debate, because of the rules of the House of Commons? Will she allow us to debate the processes that prevent issues that the public want to be debated from being discussed?
	Following the welcome announcement by the Members Estimate Committee of the speeding up of the process of examining Members' allowances—a decision will be taken in July rather than in the autumn—will she make a statement confirming that any proposals will be subject to external approbation to ensure that they are not solely concocted within this place? Will she ensure that any such proposals have the support of independent and reputable bodies outside this place?
	On Members of the House of Lords, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and a similar Bill that was introduced yesterday in the House of Lords by my noble Friend Lord Oakeshott are given the parliamentary time that will allow us to end the practice of Members of the House of Lords in the UK Parliament taking seats when they do not pay tax in the United Kingdom, which is an absolute disgrace?
	The Leader of the House has announced that we will quite properly have a debate on international women's day next week, and we are quite properly having the St. David's day debate today. There has still been no word on having a Commonwealth day debate—Commonwealth day is a week on Monday. Given the important Commonwealth issues, not least the new presidency in Cyprus, which raises the hope of new negotiations for peace, can we have a Commonwealth debate, for which some of us have been asking for a long time?
	Will the right hon. and learned Lady talk to the Home Secretary not about post offices, although she might do that, but about finding time for debates on important Home Office matters that are currently not listed to come before the House? The immigration changes that are due to come into force at the end of this month will make it very difficult for many long-term husbands, wives, fiancés and partners to come and settle in this country with their lawful other half. Will she also give us the opportunity to debate in this place the citizenship Green Paper, which many Commonwealth citizens are very angry about because they feel the ancestry issue and their commitment to this country is being disregarded, and to debate Home Office policy, which is still willing on occasions to send gay people back to countries such as Iran where they could be persecuted, and even executed?
	Finally, given that we now know that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence does not have information on drug trials that show that certain drugs are no good for their purpose, such as dealing with depression, may we get that subject on the Order Paper so we can expose the pharmaceutical industry's unwillingness to reveal that patients often spend a lot of money on drugs that are probably of no clinical use at all?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the consideration of amendments to the European Union (Amendment) Bill. As he knows, the tabling of amendments is a matter for individual Members and the selection of amendments is a matter for the Speaker. I do not want to trespass on the Speaker's territory, but I would assume that tabling an amendment that is about our leaving the European Union to a Bill that is about the Lisbon treaty would not be in order, as it would not be within the Bill's scope. However, that is a matter for the Speaker, not me, to decide.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about Members' allowances. As he knows, before the case of the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) arose on a report from the Standards and Privileges Committee, we debated on 24 January not only Members' pay but reimbursement for our expenditure on activities as Members. The House decided unanimously to refer the question of Members' allowances to the Members Estimate Committee, which the Speaker chairs. Under its remit from the House, that Committee has been taking forward its review and on 25 February published how it will make progress. The Committee has invited all Members who wish to do so to give evidence, and it states that it will consider not just a root-and-branch review of the structure of allowances and reimbursements, but how there can be proper checks and auditing of claims made under the new process. That is important work, and the Members Estimate Committee is getting on with it. The review will also deal with the question whether there may be an additional role for the Committee on Standards in Public Life or any external auditing.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether consideration could be given to having a debate on Commonwealth day. He has made that point a number of times before, and I shall consider whether there should be a topical debate.
	The hon. Gentleman raised Home Office matters in relation to immigration and the citizenship Green Paper. Those are important issues for the public as well as this House, but I assure him that the Home Office does not send people back to where they would be tortured or executed, and if there were any question of that happening the courts would rightly step in and stop it.
	On drugs trials and NICE, we need to be sure that it has all the necessary published and unpublished material so that it can make its decisions on the basis of the fullest possible information.

Eric Illsley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for the House to debate the regulation of paediatricians? Following the striking off of Professor Southall last year in respect of an incident, witnessed by a third party, that occurred some years ago, paediatricians are very reluctant to involve themselves in interviews with parents or to undertake examinations, because they could be subject to false allegations even when such an examination or interview has been witnessed by a third party. There is great reluctance and fear among paediatricians. Will my right hon. and learned Friend examine the matter?

Harriet Harman: The question of there being enough properly trained paediatricians is a matter of concern for my colleagues in the Department of Health, and I shall bring my hon. Friend's point to their attention.

Andrew MacKay: Why did the Leader of the House fail to answer the question about her comments on Fidel Castro? Does she not understand that as Leader of the House, deputy leader and chairman of the Labour party and deputy to the Prime Minister, her backing a homophobic dictator who has abused human rights in his country is no laughing matter?

Harriet Harman: I also said in that interview that it was time for Cuba to move on, and I look forward to its moving on to democracy and full human rights.

Julie Morgan: May I thank the Leader of the House for making time for the annual St. David's day debate this afternoon? I am looking forward to it. Tomorrow, the national minimum wage outreach campaign bus comes to Pontprennau in my constituency to spread the news of the minimum wage and employment rights. When can we have a debate to celebrate the success of the minimum wage and the benefit it has brought, particularly to low paid women workers?

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which has reminded the whole House of the importance of the national minimum wage, particularly for low paid women workers. It gives me the opportunity, in a non-partisan way, to remind the House and everyone who has benefited from the minimum wage that the Conservative party voted against it, saying that it would undermine the employment of women. In that respect, as in so many others, Labour Members were right on the economy and social justice, and the Conservatives were wrong.

Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House will be aware that elections are imminent in Zimbabwe. Surely she agrees that it is crucial that they should be properly and fully monitored to ensure that Mr. Mugabe cannot yet again claim victory when he has lost an election. Will she allow a debate in Government time—if not then, will she allow a topical debate, although I know that she will claim that such debates are in Government time—so that the matter can be discussed and appropriate arrangements made to help the people of Zimbabwe to get a Government who will help that country and help them?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman makes a crucial point, because it is important that this country works with other countries and, in particular, with the European Union, to monitor those elections, and I take it as a proposal for a topical debate.

Brian Iddon: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend has noticed that, yet again, six Bills listed on the Order Paper are identical to my private Member's Bill, the Pedlars (Street Trading Regulations) Bill, which comes before the House next Friday. The Chairman of Ways and Means has written to the Government asking them to facilitate the legislation by supporting my Bill, which is supported by the Opposition parties. Will she have a word during the week with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), to see whether he will facilitate getting the Bill into Committee on Friday, so that we can unblock all this legislation? I am told that up to 50 Bills are likely to come before the House in the not-too-distant future.

Harriet Harman: I will bring my hon. Friend's points to the attention of the relevant Minister.

Mr. Speaker: I call Angus Robertson.

Alistair Carmichael: That will be myself. [Hon. Members: "You will do.] I have been called worse than Angus Robertson—but not much worse.
	Would the Leader of the House make time available for an urgent statement by the Secretary of State for Transport on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's rapidly deteriorating industrial relations? The right hon. and learned Lady will doubtless be aware that its workers are anticipating strike action for the first time. The management claim to have contingency measures in place should that happen. Many of us in coastal and island communities do not have a great deal of confidence in those measures, and this matter needs to be discussed in this House before it becomes time critical.

Harriet Harman: We all hope that the contingency arrangements will not have to be put into effect because we hope that any disputes will have been settled before they reach that point. I join the hon. Gentleman in placing on record the importance of the MCA's work, and I pay tribute to those who work in it.

Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. and learned Friend will recall the chaos on the railways over Christmas, about which I tabled an early-day motion in January.
	Yesterday, the Office of Rail Regulation published a report that was highly critical of Network Rail and the ongoing railway track work problems. Can we have a full debate on the Floor of the House on the whole railway industry so that we can compare public and private ownership of the railways and, in particular, examine track work costs and the levels of public subsidy and fares?

Harriet Harman: That matter could be the subject of a debate—perhaps my hon. Friend could propose it as the subject of an Adjournment debate. He makes an important underlying point. Since we came into Government, more passengers and more freight have been carried on the railways, and more trains are running on time. The ORR is right to place strongly and publicly on record the unacceptability of Network Rail's track repairs in that respect, and I hope that we will see a prompt improvement.

Patrick Cormack: Could the Leader of the House tell us when we will have the opportunity to debate the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill? Will she assure the House that the conscience clauses will not be subject to a Government Whip?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has completed its passage through the House of Lords following its introduction there, and that votes were whipped on both sides. [Hon. Members: "Not true."] Well, if I am wrong about that and if I am reminded in what respect I am wrong, I shall correct myself at some point. The Bill will come before this House in due course. It is a Government Bill, but the question of how different clauses are dealt with will be decided in due course.

Denis MacShane: Can we have an early debate on prostituted women so that we can get a sense of the feel of the House ahead of the review that the Leader of the House mentioned? Can she confirm that the rate of murder among prostituted women in this country is 18 times that among other women? Can she also confirm that in places where prostitution is legal, such as Nevada, or semi-legal, such as Germany, the rates of violence towards or abuse of prostituted women is far higher than elsewhere? Does she agree that taking DNA samples from men who go to massage parlours and brothels would be a way of putting men in front of their responsibilities, because almost all the horrible murders of prostituted women are carried out by men who have frequented them beforehand?

Harriet Harman: My right hon. Friend raises a number of very important points, and I hope that he will raise them more fully in the international women's day debate. One of the Government's priorities is to end violence against women, and women who have got into prostitution face very high levels of violence and intimidation. On the question of DNA samples, it is right that I have the opportunity to bring to the House's attention the fact that not only murders but many rapes can be solved by using DNA evidence that is collected and stored, whereas previously we would not have been able to bring offenders to justice.

George Young: The Leader of the House may recall that last July, she caused uproar in the Chamber when she unilaterally and spontaneously suspended the Standing Orders of the House so that the Government, not the House, could put somebody on a Select Committee. Will she find time for a debate on item 47 of the future business, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), which would prevent any recurrence of that abuse?

Harriet Harman: I do not accept that I have caused uproar or done anything that has broken the rules of this House or exceeded my rights, nor would it have been accepted by the House authorities if I had done so. Everything that I have done has been perfectly in order and within the procedures.

David Chaytor: Next week, hundreds of thousands of parents will receive notification of the school to which their child has been allocated for the year beginning in September. Given that it will be the first year under the new code of practice on school admissions, and in view of the important statements made by the schools adjudicator this week about how the system could be improved, may we have a debate on the issue to evaluate the effect of the new code of practice on school admissions?

Harriet Harman: Ministers in the Department for Children, Schools and Families are evaluating closely how the new law and processes are working. The overwhelming majority of parents get their first choice of school, but we want to ensure that the system operates fairly and that everybody is in an equal position to get the choice of school that they want for their children. I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of the relevant Ministers.

Stephen Hammond: The post offices in Leopold road, Kingston road, Coombe lane and Wimbledon village in my constituency are threatened with closure. In many cases, the consultation is believed to be a sham and the rationale being put forward is simply wrong. May I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider her intemperate response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May)? After all, given the dithering of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which cost the British taxpayer £50 billion, to chide us for extra money seems a little rich. Will she reconsider her answer and give us time, in Government time, to debate this matter, which is important for local communities?

Harriet Harman: The Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs has recently given evidence to the Select Committee on the progress of the post office closure consultation programme. No doubt the Committee will produce its report in due course. Nobody would defend a consultation if it were not carried out properly, in good faith, openly and according to objective criteria. That is how we expect the consultation to be carried out, and we are entitled to know that it is.

David Taylor: A few days ago, I tabled early-day motion 1014.
	 [ That this House congratulates all those who have expended huge efforts over a decade to return an Avro Vulcan aeroplane to public display; believes that this is an icon of British heritage and an invaluable asset in assisting today's students to better understand British science, engineering and history; recalls that it remains the only project of its kind to have received support from the Heritage Lottery Fund and salutes the record-breaking first flight in its present restored form in October 2007; is concerned to learn that, because the final tranche of funding and sponsorship has yet to be secured, this fully flight-ready aircraft presently languishes in a Leicestershire hangar, unable to appear at UK airshows in 2008; and believes that urgent advice and assistance should be provided to the project team by the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills to surmount the final funding hurdle of £150,000 before the end of March 2008 and thus to carry on the vital educational programme built around this incredible machine. ]
	It draws attention to the fact that languishing in a Leicestershire hangar is a magnificent, fully flight-ready Avro Vulcan, which has been restored over 10 years by an active team of people. Will my right hon. and learned Friend draw the early-day motion to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, to see how they can help to bridge the final gap of £150,000—we have had some Heritage Lottery Fund funding—by the end of next month, so that we can put on full public display this magnificent symbol of British science, engineering and post-war history? We are so close, but we need some central support.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend poses a challenge. That is important work, and it seems that we are right near the end of it and want to ensure that we take the final steps so that that important Vulcan can be on public display.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) alluded to the recent publication of the amalgamation of 47 published and unpublished clinical trials on antidepressants. The Leader of the House and other hon. Members will be aware of the concerns that their constituents have about some of those drugs, particularly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. May I suggest that that would be a useful subject for a topical debate, so that we can probe the Government's attitude to SSRIs and in particular how the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency—as opposed to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence—works in relation to the approval of those drugs?

Harriet Harman: I do not think that I can assist the hon. Gentleman any further than to say that I will refer his point to Ministers in the Department of Health. We want open, transparent and scientifically based assessments of and decisions on medicines that are available, to ensure that they do what they are supposed to do, that they are safe and that there is a fair deal between the taxpayer and the pharmaceutical companies. I shall raise the point with Ministers in the Department of Health.

Jim Sheridan: Can my right hon. and learned Friend inform the House how much taxpayers' money has been used to refurbish the facilities in the Press Gallery, particularly the heavily subsidised bar? I have scanned the newspapers to try to get some information, but as yet I have been unsuccessful.

Harriet Harman: I undertake to find out the information about the cost of the refurbishment of the Press Gallery and I shall arrange for the appropriate House official to write to my hon. Friend and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
	To add to my earlier answer on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, the amendment on abortion in the House of Lords was of course subject to a free vote. Should there be any amendment on abortion in this House, of course and as is always the case, it would be subject to a free vote.

John Bercow: What a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and to know that we have as our Speaker somebody who is simply not prepared to be pushed around, either by snobs or by bullies.
	May we have a debate on the continuing crisis in Darfur? Given that the numbers of dead, dying and destitute are increasing exponentially every day, is it not time that we had a debate in Government time, on the Floor of the House, to try to establish whether, and if so when, we will get the imposition of the no-fly zone first discussed more than three years ago and the necessary full-scale African Union-United Nations troop deployment to the region? That combination alone offers hope to the people of Darfur that they might enjoy the freedom, peace and justice that we have so long enjoyed and they have so long been denied.

Harriet Harman: These are issues of great concern to Ministers in both the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office. I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman's points about the African Union force and the no-fly zone, and of course it is important that pressure be kept up on the Sudanese Government.
	May I take the opportunity to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about you, Mr. Speaker, and to remind the House of what we all know—that we, as Members of Parliament, choose the Speaker of this House? It is our choice, not that of the newspapers.

David Burrowes: When the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill comes to this House, will the Leader of the House ensure that there is a Committee of the whole House to consider significant issues relating to respect for human life? Will she follow the precedent of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990? On 23 and 24 April that year, the whole House considered embryo research and abortion.

Harriet Harman: I will consider the hon. Gentleman's points about how we should handle the Bill at Committee stage. We will make an announcement in due course, following consultations across the House.

Andrew Rosindell: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House and from all parts of the United Kingdom will welcome today's debate on Welsh affairs, coinciding with St. David's day. Will the Leader of the House make similar provision for a debate on 23 April, to coincide with St. George's day, so that we can debate affairs relating to England?

Harriet Harman: I will consider that proposal.

John Barrett: Will the Leader of the House find time to debate the genuine concerns of the south Asian community about two issues: the new immigration laws that are coming in, and the increasing burden on south Asian businesses, which affect a major part of the UK economy?

Harriet Harman: I will bring those points to the attention of my right hon. Friends in the Home Office. I think we all want to be sure that those who migrate to this country continue to play their important part in local communities and in our economy, our services and the community life of this country, and that they can be joined by relatives. We also need to make absolutely sure that we have fair and firm rules to ensure that those who come here do so within the rules, and that those outside the rules are deported.

William Cash: Would the Leader of the House, who I think has general overall responsibility for the recording and broadcasting of proceedings in the House, give us a debate on the BBC's use of proceedings, particularly those on the important questions relating to the Lisbon treaty? We pay some £3 billion a year in the taxpayers' licence fee, and there are people outside this place who, apart from the parliamentary channel, simply do not hear what goes on here, irrespective of the differences between the political parties. The bottom line is that this is a matter of public policy under the charter. There was nothing on "Yesterday in Parliament" today with regard to the important issues of the supremacy of Parliament that were debated yesterday. That means effectively that people outside do not know what is going on in the House with respect to the vital matter of who governs them and how. Would the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I get the impression that the Leader of the House will be able to answer that question.

Harriet Harman: I think that editorial decisions about news coverage of what goes on in the House are a matter for the broadcasters themselves. I think that we would all like more coverage of the House so that people outside can understand the work going on in Parliament, but in that respect, it is important for us to ensure that we debate things in a way that is not arcane and technical, but which not only contributes to the discussion but is understandable outside the House. I, for one, would suggest that we ban the word "passerelles", but that is a personal view.
	We must recognise that although these issues are important and it is right that we should be spending 12 days in Committee of the whole House discussing the European Union (Amendment) Bill, there are a lot of other issues that people outside the House would like to see us debating, such as public services, the economy and other things that they know affect their lives directly.

Mark Pritchard: May we have an urgent debate on collective responsibility in government? It cannot be right that the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—I do not wish to embarrass the Welsh Secretary, who is sitting on the Front Bench—while campaigning in their own constituencies against the closure of post offices, are fully signed up to closing post offices in constituencies such as mine. If Ministers feel so angry about their own policy, they should resign.

Harriet Harman: As I understand it, there is no constituency where it is proposed that every single post office should be closed. The notion suggested by the hon. Gentleman that some Members will find all their post offices closed, while others will find that all theirs have been kept open, is not correct. If there is a consultation about which post offices will close and which will stay open, it cannot be right to say that Members of Parliament who are also Ministers cannot represent the views of their constituents on how post offices in their constituencies are configured. Hon. Members can well understand that it is perfectly possible to agree to a situation where, of some 14,000 post offices, about 2,000 will be closed, and that there must be a consultation about which should be closed. To ban Members of Parliament from being involved in that consultation because they are Ministers would be completely wrong.

Mark Harper: Taking the Leader of the House back to her announcements about the European Union (Amendment) Bill and its progress through the House, I mention in passing that, as she will remember, the House did indeed vote on whether we would have an in/out referendum during the Queen's Speech debate, and the motion was, of course, resoundingly defeated. On the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about debating defence matters, the Leader of the House will remember that the relevant parts of the Bill were not even reached in debate. I think that there is assent throughout the House that that subject is so important that if she could find some extra time specifically to debate defence, it would be very welcome.

Harriet Harman: The way in which we are dealing with Committee consideration was the subject of a procedure motion, which was itself the subject of debate. There is also the question of how Members deal with it; those who spend a lot of time making lengthy speeches early in debates will crowd out others later on. We do not want to be too prescriptive. We were not too prescriptive in the programme motion and we have shown ourselves, as we promised, to be flexible about the balance between four and a half hours and one and a half hours, sometimes making it three hours and three hours.
	We have tried to be flexible. We have given a great deal of time. We are eight days in; we have had eight full days of parliamentary debate on the Bill, and that is just in Committee. It is a very long debate. Second Reading was one day, the business motion was one day and Committee stage and Third Reading have 12 days. I think that we have had a great deal of debate. The suggestion that we are somehow trying to stifle debate makes me wonder whether colleagues have been in the Chamber and listening to the business statement. The debate has been extensive—some would say exhaustive. I am not saying that the Lisbon treaty is not important. Of course it is important, but I think that the House has had ample time to debate it.

Richard Benyon: May I ask the Leader of the House what has happened to topical debates? We do not seem to have so many of them, and when we do, the subject matter bears a remarkable similarity to that of whatever speech the Prime Minister may have made earlier in the week. I suggest, in addition to my oft-repeated request for a debate on post office closures, that we have a debate on the human rights record of Fidel Castro.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have made an announcement that, after the introduction of topical debates in Government time, following the proposals of the Modernisation Committee, I undertook to review how the topical debates were operating. We have not had any for a number of weeks, for one reason or another: for example, pressure on Government business time by Northern Rock and the fact that I took a view on the need to discuss Members' pay at length. Due to a number of issues, we have felt that Thursday business needed to be devoted to something other than topical debates. I point out, in relation to the hon. Gentleman's point that the topical debate subject always seems to be the Prime Minister's latest speech, that the last topical debate was on a subject proposed by the shadow Leader of the House.

Robert Wilson: May we have a debate in Government time on the third runway at Heathrow? Considerable doubts are being expressed about the environmental assessment that has taken place and the role of BAA. Heathrow plays a crucial role in the life of the national economy, so it is extremely important that the issue should be debated fully and frankly.

Harriet Harman: I agree that that is a very important issue. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have undertaken a consultation exercise, which has just closed. There were many thousands of responses, which are being considered by the Government, and the decision will be reported in due course.

Philip Hollobone: If the Government are serious about combating climate change, may we have a joint statement from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform on climate change and retail premises that leave their doors open all day, blasting hot air into the atmosphere? My constituent, Mr. Mike Southwell of Weston by Welland, wrote to me this week to say that on a visit to his local high street he
	"counted TEN shops with their doors wide open to the skies, and large fan heaters blowing hot air down in an effort to keep the stores warm. On going into"
	one of the shops
	"and suggesting that the door should be closed, the shop assistant said that the management insisted the doors be open at all times to increase footfall."
	What will the Government do to resolve that dilemma?

Harriet Harman: I will ask my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers in DEFRA and DBERR to address the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. The practice sounds wasteful, and it is obviously costly and not good for the environment. We want our retail businesses to thrive, but we also need to save the planet.

John Hemming: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I do not mean to embarrass the hon. Gentleman, but he did not come into the Chamber for the business statement. Hon. Members must hear the statement to ask a supplementary question.

Paul Flynn: Yesterday, we heard of the new drugs strategy, but we have not had a debate on the old drug strategy that was introduced with the full support of every party—

Mr. Speaker: I must stop the hon. Gentlemen. There are yellow cards and red cards being shown today. He left the Chamber and then came back in.

Paul Flynn: I heard the statement.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman left and came back in, and that is not on. It cannot be done. He should try again next week; he is sure to catch my eye then.

Welsh Affairs

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That this House has considered the matter of Welsh Affairs.— [Siobhain McDonagh.]

Paul Murphy: Before I begin my contribution, I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), for the work that he did, not only as Secretary of State for Wales, but as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Many people's lives in our country have improved because of his work.
	This debate is sometimes called the St. David's day debate, but as you will know, Mr. Speaker, St. David's day is on Saturday. It is in fact the feast day of St. Llibio, a sixth-century hermit from the island of Anglesey. Nevertheless, we can say that we are almost on the eve of St. David's day. Just a few moments ago, a large number of Members of both Houses were privileged to attend the St. David's day service at St. Mary's Undercroft. I pay tribute to all those who organised the service, and particular tribute to the two schools who sang at the service—the London Welsh school and the Welsh school from Abercarn. It was an excellent start to our deliberations on Welsh matters.
	Some people say that we should not have a Welsh day debate, and that since devolution arrived, there is no need for it, but I do not agree. It gives us an opportunity to debate and deliberate, and to celebrate our country. We have had a Welsh day debate since 1944, when the then Member for Ebbw Vale, Aneurin Bevan, addressed the House. It was in 2002 when I last spoke as Secretary of State in a similar debate, almost six years ago to the day. I reread my speech—I do not do that often, to be perfectly honest—and what struck me was that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), made his maiden speech on that day, and I welcomed him to the House. Who would have thought that, six years later, he would wind up the St. David's day debate in the Chamber?
	I also reflected on what has happened in Wales in the six years between my leaving office and returning to it. Of course, we could talk, as we do in Welsh questions and on other occasions, about improvements to our public services—to the health service and education—and about the environment and local government. Those are largely now issues for the National Assembly for Wales. However, as the House of Commons determines the Assembly's finances, as Parliament must do, we, too, play our part in ensuring that our hospitals, schools and public services generally in Wales improve.

Mark Pritchard: May I congratulate the Secretary of State for Wales on his return to the Dispatch Box? He mentioned the financing of education in Wales. Obviously, it is a devolved matter, but does he share my concern that the chief inspector of schools in Wales recently said that 16 schools—double last year's number—will now have to be put into special measures, or be given significant improvement notices?

Paul Murphy: Of course I share the concern that if schools are not performing, they should improve. There is always room for improvement, but as I said yesterday in the House in reply to the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), if one looks at the overall picture for education, and particularly for schools in Wales, standards in our schools have risen, certainly in my constituency. School buildings have improved and class sizes have reduced. Every Member who represents a Welsh constituency will have a good tale to tell. That does not in any way mean that we can be complacent. We have to look seriously at the inspector's report. That, of course, is ultimately a matter for Jane Hutt, the Minister for Education, Culture and Young People in Wales. I am sure that she will take any remedial action that is necessary. However, it is a devolved issue.
	Our role, as a Parliament and a Government, is obviously to ensure that there are sufficient resources for our public services in Wales. There is no question but that in the past decade, an enormous amount of public money has gone into our services in Wales. That was possible because of a strong economy, which has been handled well, and because of low mortgage and interest rates. The effect of that, as every constituency Member of Parliament can say, is that there are many more people in work than there were a decade ago. Unemployment rates have fallen dramatically in every single constituency, and there are 130,000 more people in work than there were just over a decade ago. That is a good story for our people. It is against that background that we have had the money to give the Welsh Assembly to improve our services.

Cheryl Gillan: I thank the Secretary of State for the approach that he is taking to the debate. Does he share my concern that a recent answer to a written question revealed that more than 400,000 people are still economically inactive or unemployed in Wales? What does he have to say about how we can help the people and families concerned back into work?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) raised the same issue yesterday, and I mentioned then that the various initiatives that have been taken, such as the pathfinder initiative, help. However, I do not for one second underestimate the issue that we have to address. The Department for Work and Pensions has a role to play, and the National Assembly takes the issue very seriously. I do not underestimate the problem, but neither would I exaggerate it. The situation has to be considered in light of the enormous rise in the number of people working in Wales in the past 10 years.

Simon Hughes: I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Front Bench, and I join him in paying tribute to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), for his work in the Wales Office. I took my seat in the House on St. David's day, nearly 25 years ago, and I still support home teams in sport. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is important that we raise spirits in Wales not only through better housing, schooling, transport and health services, but by supporting sport in Wales? Given that we have had such a fantastic start—I mean this seriously—to the rugby season, which has lifted spirits so well, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he and his colleagues will do all they can in the next few years to make sure that Welsh women and men can play as prominent a part as possible in the Olympic games in four years and in all other UK and international sport?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is right. With the Olympics coming to our country, there is an opportunity for Welsh men and women to train and take part in those games and the various spin-offs. Because the Olympics are in London, that can help Welsh sports people. May I also tell the hon. Gentleman that I was at the match on Saturday when Wales defeated Italy by a rather large margin? One hopes that in the two remaining matches in Dublin and in Cardiff, against Ireland and against France, we will indeed get the grand slam.

Ann Clwyd: On the point about the Olympics, my right hon. Friend will know that there is considerable concern in Wales about the cuts faced by organisations such as the Eisteddfod and various arts groups because of money being spent on the Olympics in London. Can he tell us what he thinks the benefit of the Olympics will be for Wales if cuts are taking place in funding for organisations that have come to depend on it?

Paul Murphy: I understand what my right hon. Friend says and I know that the same points have been made in the National Assembly, but we have to accept that with the United Kingdom being the home of the Olympics when they come, there will be benefits for the whole of our country, including our country of Wales. How precisely that happens is a matter for those organising the games and for the Government Departments which are deeply involved in that. I very much take the point that my right hon. Friend makes and I hope that as part of the United Kingdom, we will share in the benefits of the Olympics.

Elfyn Llwyd: I share the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). When it was announced that the Olympics were coming, I welcomed the announcement, but I asked the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether she would consider holding the canoeing championships in the world-class facility in Bala and the yachting in Pwllheli, which had been very successful for the Commonwealth games. She laughed and said, "We'll see what we can do." Nothing has come to Wales.

Paul Murphy: I will take up the hon. Gentleman's point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I am not the world's greatest expert on sport, but I understand the general point that the hon. Gentleman is making—that if there are events that can be held in Wales with the Olympics, that must be a good thing for the Welsh people.

Anne Main: I was born and brought up in Cardiff, as were my parents. My mother will tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the swimming pool that was in Cardiff city centre was part of the last London Olympics a long, long time ago— [Interruption.] I am sorry, the Empire games. There were spin-offs then which are not being seen in Wales, and that is a great misfortune.

Paul Murphy: I can remember the Empire swimming pool—it was an awfully long time ago. I agree that we need to consider these aspects. Of course, there are benefits for businesses, too, because of the arrival of the Olympics. I do not know of any country in the world that would not want to hold the Olympics, with the effect that can come to business and industry.

Mark Pritchard: The Secretary of State is being very generous. Does he accept that there is a link between sport in schools and those children developing into potential Olympic athletes, and does he share my concern that some schools in Wales have had to sell off the playing fields and the children cannot play the same sort of sports on concrete? Will he undertake to speak to the Minister for Education, Culture and Young People to try and stop the sell-off of school playing fields? As somebody who, growing up in Wales, played a poor scrum half for his school but grew up under perhaps the best rugby team ever in British history in the days of Gareth Edwards et al, may I say—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. With great respect, that is going a little far for an intervention.

Paul Murphy: The debate is becoming a topical debate on rugby. I was not very good at it, either. I was so bad that after two games I was put on the line for ever, and that was in a good rugby school.

Albert Owen: On the topic of the Olympics, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) makes a good point about facilities available in Wales. If we do not get the main events in Wales other than soccer, there is the opportunity for teams to acclimatise and train beforehand in Wales. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he works with his colleagues in Government and with the Minister for Education, Culture and Young People in the National Assembly for Wales to make sure that such projects develop from the assets already available, so that we have an Olympic legacy in Wales?

Paul Murphy: Yes, of course. My hon. Friend the Minister is to meet my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics to discuss these matters—specifically, how Wales can help in training people, as well as hosting events. I take the points that were made about north Wales as well.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I learned to swim in the Empire pool in Cardiff. More importantly, I worked for 10 years in the world of sport and I know how important it can be in crystallising the hopes and aspirations of youngsters. One of the things that I am concerned about is the way we market Wales, particularly as we are getting the Ryder cup in Wales and the Ashes match at the Sophia Gardens ground. We have a fabulous stadium and we have a world-beating rugby team. How will we market Wales as a wonderful venue for sport? Having listened to some of the presentations, I feel that we are not tying up all those events and marketing Wales worldwide in the way that we should do. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to look at that with me and see how we can promote Wales throughout the world as a great sporting venue?

Paul Murphy: Yes, of course. I hope that in three or four weeks, when we win the final match against France, that will be an opportunity to deal with those matters. I know that the Assembly is doing a great deal of work in marketing Wales as a place where sport is so significant. That needs to be done in conjunction with the United Kingdom Government as well.

Roger Williams: Before we go off the subject of the Olympics, nobody doubts that community sport and community arts activity in Wales have suffered because money has been allocated from Wales to the Olympics. It is important that after the Olympics, when the Olympic estate is sold off, moneys raised in that way come back to Wales disproportionately, because of the losses that Wales has suffered.

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman has a good point: it is important that when the Olympics finish, Wales should benefit from the legacy.

Ian Lucas: My right hon. Friend is being extremely generous. On the lottery point, it is fair to point out that in a recent case in Wales concerning the Big Lottery Fund, out of an allocation of £15 million for the stepping stone project, only £8 million was spent, and no organisations in north Wales benefited from that fund. We should remember that a great deal of money is still available and not all of it is being deployed.

Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the underspend of lottery money.

Betty Williams: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of the Olympics, does he agree that we should direct our attention not only at the competitive side, but at the bidding process for the building of the Olympic sites? All Members received a letter a few weeks ago about encouraging contractors in our constituencies to bid for that work. If we, as Members of Parliament in all parts of the House, have not done that, we have not been doing our work properly.

Paul Murphy: Yes. My hon. Friend makes an important point.
	I come now to the changes in our economy in rural and urban areas. I recall that when I was a boy, 250,000 Welsh men worked in the coal industry—that was not confined to south Wales; there was also the great north Wales coalfield—but very few people now work in coal. Thousands, too, worked in the steel industry. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Davies) will know how his constituency was dominated by steel. When I worked in Ebbw Vale for 17 years, virtually everybody, one way or another, was connected with the steel industry. But how that has changed. First, it changed to heavy engineering, a lot of which has gone too. In its place we now have lighter, more skilled jobs, and in our rural areas, very often tourism has replaced agriculture as the main employer. There have been enormous changes in the way in which people earn their living in Wales.
	Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), at a rather, shall we say, excited part of the parliamentary day, rightly raised the issue of the creative industries in Wales. When I came back into this job, I was struck by the number of people who are now employed in those industries throughout Wales. I was also impressed by the fact that the knowledge economy now dominates many parts of Wales, with the techniums that have been set up, and the fact that so many of our Welsh graduates now stay in Wales or come back to Wales to work in the new industries.

Mark Williams: In the spirit of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, does he agree that there is a particular role for our higher education institutions, and will he welcome the collaboration between the universities of Bangor and Aberystwyth and the merger of the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research with the university of Aberystwyth to facilitate economic regeneration in our rural areas as well as our urban ones?

Paul Murphy: That is hugely important, and I could not agree more. It is also important that we all look forward to the North East Wales Institute becoming a university as soon as possible, because the north-east is the only major region of Wales that is still without a university.
	It is interesting, and perhaps startling but a great tribute to us, that the university of Cardiff has produced two Nobel prize winners. These are hugely important developments for Wales. We now have to concentrate on skills, innovation and enterprise and unlocking the talents of our young people to work in the aerospace and automotive industries, financial services and so on.

Julie Morgan: Did my right hon. Friend see the results of the survey announced by the Minister for Education, Culture and Young People yesterday and reported in the press this morning showing that university students in Wales were the happiest and most fulfilled in the UK, and that universities in Wales scored highly in comparison with other universities throughout the UK and internationally?

Paul Murphy: That is a great development, which has occurred alongside a growing self-confidence among Welsh people that we have a great deal to offer to people outside Wales. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter.
	Objective 1 has been an instrument by which to enlarge our economic horizons in the valleys and in west Wales. In the Republic of Ireland, by a special use—

Martyn Jones: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the economy, particularly that of north-east Wales, which is doing well, he will know that in my constituency, Dennis Ruabon, the only quarry tile manufacturer in the UK, has closed down and is in receivership. Will he do what he can to find out precisely what is happening with that plant and whether he can help the plant and Wrexham council to make sure that that employment is returned to that site?

Paul Murphy: I shall certainly look into that for my hon. Friend and be in touch with him.
	Wales is small in geographical terms, but big in impact, and the phrase "a small, clever country" is applicable and should be said many times here and in Wales.
	It is also important that our economy has benefited and our people's lives are improved because we are part of the UK. The benefits of the devolved Assembly in Wales, including making Ministers more accessible to the people and providing greater accountability, must be set alongside the benefits that we receive from membership of the UK, such as the fact that 46,000 people have benefited from the new deal in Wales. We can learn from each other.
	For example, the UK Government, and England in particular, benefit from what we do in Wales, including the establishment of the first children's commissioner, the legislation for which I remember putting through the House some years ago, and probably the best and most sophisticated free bus travel for the over-60s in the UK, which has now been adopted in other parts of our country. We, too, benefit, from the work on hospital waiting lists, for example which we discussed yesterday in Welsh questions—ideas that flow from initiatives in England. In addition, we play our part in the British-Irish Council and can learn from Scotland, the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
	That brings me to devolution itself and the role of Members of Parliament in terms of a post-devolution Wales that is nevertheless still very much part of the UK. I do not believe for one second that we should reduce the number of Welsh Members of Parliament. It is crazy to suggest that we should have fewer MPs and therefore less influence in this place. Until there are considerable changes in the constitutional set-up in the UK, the number of MPs should remain the same. Nor do I believe for one second that we should be inferior Members of Parliament to anybody else. We should play our part in the deliberations of this House, of which we should be fully paid-up Members. We should represent all our constituencies and constituents in this place and in every aspect of the work of the House of Commons.

David Davies: I suspect that some of the right hon. Gentleman's views on these matters are closer to mine than it is wise for either of us to let on at times, but surely a man of his considerable experience can see that the current arrangements are impossible and cannot continue, with Welsh Members of Parliament voting on the health service or education system in England but not being able to do the same thing in Wales. Surely a man of his experience can see that that is a ridiculous constitutional arrangement.

Paul Murphy: No, I do not think that it is. So many Bills pass through this House that affect England and Wales that it would be difficult to start disentangling them, with Members being able to vote on one amendment but not on another. When a Member is elected to the United Kingdom Parliament, they are elected as a proper Member. The House of Commons decides on the financing of the health service in Wales through the block grant. I do not want to stimulate too much debate on the issue, but in the past months it has often been said that Welsh Members of Parliament have a different role to play from that in the past, and that is a view that I reject. Welsh Members of Parliament have the same rights, duties, responsibilities and opportunities as every other Member of the House of Commons.

David Davies: In that case, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Welsh Members of Parliament should be able to ask questions about how the health service, the education system and the local government funding formula in Wales operate? Does he further agree that it is unfair that we cannot do that at the moment?

Paul Murphy: I did not notice any lack of questions on those issues yesterday. There are plenty of ways for such questioning to happen. In the past few years, with the co-operation of the usual channels and the Chair, a convention has developed through which we can talk about those issues in certain circumstances. Members questioned me vigorously yesterday about health services, schools and other issues that, although devolved, are shared with us in this United Kingdom Parliament.

Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman will know that I am as passionate a devotee of devolution as he; indeed, I hope that there is further devolution to Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. However, does he accept that whatever the eventual constitutional settlement here for England-only business—and I believe that change is needed—the principle of UK representation should be that Members of Parliament should all represent constituencies of the same number, or that there should be one boundary commission and that the same rules should apply across the four countries of the United Kingdom? In respect of smaller populations in rural areas, that should be applied generally across the UK and not differentially in any one of its countries.

Paul Murphy: Leaving aside the point about rural constituencies, there are not huge discrepancies between England and Wales—there were, of course, in Scotland and that has now been remedied the other way because of what has happened there.
	The other big change that I have seen since returning to this job is how different it is six years on, given the legislative work that the House has to undertake to deal with the Government of Wales Act 2006. That has given greater opportunity for Members of this House to talk about issues that are, strictly, devolved, but nevertheless, in the context of a transfer of functional power, can now be a matter of debate in this House.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Neath did extremely well in ensuring that there is proper scrutiny of framework powers legislation and legislative competence orders. That is a big development, which all Members appreciate.

Mark Pritchard: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, who is being generous in taking interventions.
	The Secretary of State would want to be accurate. The fact remains that if I go to the Table Office today and try to table a question on health or education in Wales—or any other devolved matter—I will be told that I cannot. Given that this Parliament agrees the financing of those devolved matters, it is only right that Members on both sides of the House should be able to table such questions.
	If the Secretary of State agrees with me, will he undertake to speak to the Leader of the House about instructing the Table Office to receive such questions and table them?

Paul Murphy: We have developed a pretty good compromise on how we deal with such issues in the House; it is certainly not for me to change those rules at the drop of a hat during a Welsh affairs debate on a Thursday afternoon. What is important is that the opportunities are here for Members of this House. I explained one new opportunity—when we debate the LCOs and framework powers, we have a chance to consider the issues in which we are interested that are nevertheless devolved.

Ian Lucas: I always like to assist the Conservative party whenever I can. I am aware of the close relationship between Conservative Members of Parliament and Conservative Assembly Members in Cardiff Bay. Could they not talk to each other? Conservative Members here could ask their Assembly counterparts to put down questions in Cardiff Bay; they could resolve difficulties in that way.

Paul Murphy: It is not for me to intervene in family quarrels; that is a matter for other people.
	People say that the system is complicated, and it is different and a little complicated. However, how we have passed laws here over the centuries—First Reading, Second Reading, Committee, Report and so on, and the other place—is not easy either, if we think about it. It is the outcome that matters. At the end of the day, it is not the process that is important, but the service that it delivers.

Lembit �pik: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, regardless of the constitutional arrangements, some things will always have to be discussed in Cardiff and Westminster. For example, various problems with waiting lists vex my constituents in respect of going across to Royal Shrewsbury and Gobowen hospitals; those will not be resolved simply by changes in the constitutional settlement. Does he agree that that is one issue on which we have to work in partnership with the Assembly to ensure that Welsh patients are not disadvantaged?

Paul Murphy: Yes, that issue has exercised me in the past few weeks. Proper cross-border arrangements are important. At the moment we are looking at the development of a cross-border protocol to ensure that such matters are dealt with properly. The hon. Gentleman's point is important.
	I touched briefly on the issue of scrutiny, because my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) is here. The Welsh Affairs Committee, which he chairs, does important work in overseeing the new process. I hope that the Committee is not overburdened by what has happened. He might catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, and comment on such things. In the next few months, there will come a time when he has to look back at and monitor how the process has developed and consider any possible improvements or necessary changes.
	I turn to the future of the arrangements. The Assembly will have a convention to ascertain whether there is any appetite for a referendum on more powers; we shall wait and see what happens. However, at the same time it is so important to the people whom we represent that we do not lose sight of the issues that matter to them. However important constitutional matters areand they are importantat the end of the day, the issues for Welsh people are about schools, hospitals, transport and jobs.
	We should not forget the issue of local government, which delivers services at the front line. It includes the organisations and elected bodies closest to the people of Wales. We should remember that the governance of Wales involves not only us in this place and the Assembly, but our local council chambers. I hope that it will be recognised that Labour local authorities deliver for the Welsh people, who will get the chance to exercise their franchise in a few months.
	There is nothing wrong in feeling comfortable with the current arrangementscomfortable with the fact that we can be British and Welsh. We can rejoice in the fact that we win our rugby games, that our nation of Wales prospers and develops and that the Assembly does a good job in delivering our services. However, we can also be proud to be part of the United Kingdom, which produced the national health service that is the envy of the world and which produced the welfare state, which protects the most vulnerable in our community. There is nothing wrong in rejoicing in both those aspects of government. Above all, Welsh Members of Parliament are privileged to represent Welsh people here, and to play our part in shaping the course of the United Kingdom and our own country of Wales.

Cheryl Gillan: I join the Secretary of State in saying how moving the service in the Crypt was. It was truly inclusive, and it was good that it was held in both Welsh and English. I was particularly moved by the reading from Under Milk Wood; it took me back to my childhood.
	I pay tribute to Lord Thomas of Gwydir, who, sadly, passed away last month. Everybody in the House would agree that he was a great Conservative Welsh politician who spent a lifetime serving the public. He will be greatly missed, and on St. David's day it is appropriate to remember him.
	We should also recognise that four Welshmen have been tragically killed in action while deployed on operations across the globe. On St. David's day, we should remember the ultimate sacrifice that they have made for the United Kingdom and for Wales. We must also pay tribute to the undisclosed number of service personnel who have returned home with serious injuries sustained while in theatre. Thousands of Welsh sailors, soldiers, airmen and Marines from the constituencies of every Member here remain overseas, each making a significant contribution to vital military missions, most notably in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards have been placed on immediate notice to deploy to Kosovo in support of the NATO taskforce already in the country. Their commitment to service is greatly appreciated, and on St. David's day the best wishes from everybody in this House go out to them.
	On a linked matter, I hope that the Secretary of State will continue to support the sustained investment in St. Athan for military training and to show the political leadership that is required to maximise our military assets in Wales. There is some doubt about that, not least because of the views that have been expressed on defence policy by Labour's partners in the Labour-Plaid coalition in the Assembly. I hope that he will reject their policies and give us the assurance we need that the project will go ahead.
	Much has changed since we last celebrated St. David's day. Certainly, 2007 was a watershed year for Welsh politics. May's Assembly elections marked a fundamental shift in support away from Labour and, as I believe the Secretary of State agrees, marked a new chapter in the devolution processperhaps an unexpected chapter from the Labour party's perspective. Welsh Conservatives became the official Opposition, and our gains last May underline, I hope, our party's credentials as the only credible alternative to Labour. Not least, without wishing to rub in it in, last May represented Labour's worst electoral performance since 1918. On this St. David's day I, like the Secretary of State, look forward to the local elections in Mayand to a general election, if the Prime Minister, who seems to spend most of his time dithering, summons up his courage and manages to call one.
	The other changethe obvious oneis the one at Gwydir house. When, during last year's debate, I predicted the departure of the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), it was only in jest. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to thank him for his courtesy and consideration to me throughout his tenure at the Wales Office and when I shadowed him on foreign affairs. He has always treated me with courtesy and respectbehind the Chair, if not always on the Floor of the House. I wish him well, and I would like to put that on the record.
	I am pleased to welcome the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) back to the post of Secretary of State for Wales. The Chamber seems slightly surreal this week, as we have had a MurphyJim Murphy or Paul Murphyat the Dispatch Box every single day; we seem to be making Murphy's law.
	What a challenge the new Secretary of State faces, given the very different devolutionary settlement from the days when he previously held the post. He painted himself as a devo-realist and highlighted some of the problems that he has to deal with. I think he now realises that, far from diminishing, the work load at the Welsh Office has increased and is becoming increasingly complex. At the same time, the number of staff is increasing to support that increased work load. One could take the view that more work means that there is more activity, but this is not necessarily an improved deal for Walesit reveals a Government Department that is struggling to cope with a very complicated system that the Government themselves have created.
	I do not know whether the Secretary of State has had a chance to count the number of ways in which we can legislate for Wales, but we now have 13, including Wales-only Acts, provisions in Acts applying to Wales specifically, Acts of the UK Parliament applying to England and Wales, subordinate legislation for Wales, and legislative competency ordersI could go on. It is clear that the Government were not prepared for such a complicated system. We have struggled to get Welsh clauses drafted for Bills, Ministers have given confused and contradictory explanations of how the different processes should work, and legislation has been held up in Wales, in Westminster or sometimes in a bureaucratic black hole between the two institutions.
	For me, it is crucial that an over-complex and unsatisfactory system set up by the Government does not damage the legislative process for Wales. That is why I have pushed repeatedly for protected time to discuss the Welsh provisions in Westminster Bills. I am glad that the Secretary of State and the Wales Office have now agreed on that, and I look forward to ensuring that legislation on Welsh matters, no matter what form it arrives in, is fully scrutinised and given the time that it deserves in this House. Let us face the truththis complicated legislative system was developed to bridge the gap between Labour MPs and Labour Assembly Membersto try to pacify those holding increasingly divergent views and to fool those at both ends of the motorway, as was said in the debates on the original legislation to create the constitutional settlement. Nearly 10 years after the first devolutionary settlement in Wales, instead of getting on with the business of governing Wales we still have that constant pressure from internal politics and positioning, which I hope we will be able to put to rest at some stage. I still think that the right hon. Member for Neath was mistaken when he said that the Government of Wales Act 1998 settled the constitutional question for a generation, but we shall see.

Lembit �pik: Obviously, the hon. Lady would like to be the Secretary of State for Wales instead of his shadow. Will she therefore clarify whether she thinks that the process of devolution should continue? What is the Conservative party line? Is it to improve devolution and give more powers to the Welsh Assembly, or is it the same as that of the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), who is evidently in favour of reducing its powers?

Cheryl Gillan: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but our aim as Conservatives has been clearit is to ensure that the Assembly is a success and delivers for people. That does not necessarily mean opposing more powers for the Assembly, but it does mean ensuring that if further powers are granted, that should be what the people of Wales want, and that it happens when the capacity of that institution has been developed so that it can benefit those it serves.

Roger Williams: What proposals for further devolution would the hon. Lady put to the Welsh people for their consideration?

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman is leading me down a path well in advance of any policy announcements that will be made from my side of the House. We are a year or two away from a general election, if the Prime Minister finds the courage to call one, and I do not intend to lay out our policies and proposals so early on. The Secretary of State referred to the convention, the parameters of which have not even been set, and it would be courteous to wait and see what they are; indeed, I am waiting to have my first meeting with its chairman to see what proposals, thoughts and discussions are moving forward.

David Davies: Will my hon. Friend join me in expressing happiness at the deeply gratifying sight of so many Members recognising that it is very likely that she will be Secretary of State for Wales in a year or so?

Cheryl Gillan: Moving swiftly on.

Don Touhig: The hon. Lady was not able to articulate any Conservative policies just now, but her leader said he believes that only English Members of Parliament should vote on English matters. If I recall correctly, her colleague the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) said in the last Welsh Grand Committee that Welsh Members of Parliament would vote with English Members on English matters. How confusing can the Tory policy get?

Cheryl Gillan: It is precisely because this party is the party of the Union[Hon. Members: Hear, hear!] Hang onwait for it. We need to acknowledge genuine concern over the devolutionary settlement, and we will work constructively to find a solution to that problem. To say at this stage that we are anti-devolution would be quite incorrect.
	We have made it clear that things can be done differently at different levels of government. We share the view that when an issue can be best resolved locally, that is the course we should take. When, however, a UK-approach is needed, co-operation and collaboration should be the guiding principles. I am interested in working with the Secretary of State to see how we can improve our processes, so that Members are able to get accurate information at Government level on matters affecting their constituencies, without having to ask Assembly Members to table questions for them. There should be an open door in that case because there is a problem. Quite rightly, Members want to know what is happening in their constituencies, and if there are occasions when they are ruled out of order, or when there is no mechanism for them to do so, it is difficult. Our aim is clear: it is to ensure that the Assembly is a success and that it delivers for the people of Wales.
	I should like to quote the words of the Secretary of State, which represent something that we can agree on. He said:
	We must take great care that we do not become a little bit too obsessed with identity and nationhood. I do not have to look in the mirror every quarter of an hour to remind myself that I am a WelshmanI am, and I am proud of it. At the same time, however, I know that what my constituents expect of me is an improvement in their lives.[ Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 12 December 2007; c. 27.]
	I agree with that, and I am sure that every Member can, too. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that Wales is, and should continue to be, part of the Union. I hope that his party's dangerous liaison with Plaid Cymru will not weaken the links.
	Today is a day for celebrating Wales, its culture, its people, its heritage and its future. I want to talk about the Welsh language for a moment because I am proud to remind the House that it was a Conservative Government who introduced the Welsh Language Act 1993, which led to a huge renaissance in the use of Welsh. Perhaps it is also an opportune moment for me to pay tribute to Lord Roberts, who retired from the Conservative Front Bench in the other place this year. Lord Roberts piloted that Act through the House, and I am sure that we have not heard the last of him.
	This brings me to something that caused me great concern. I heard that the plans for the daily Welsh language paper  Y BydI hope the House will please forgive my pronunciationhave been abandoned after receiving insufficient support. May I ask the Secretary of State what encouragement he has given to  Y Byd? I met  Y Byd's promoters at the Eisteddfod last year, and they were full of enthusiasm and hope. I was very much looking forward to the launch of the first edition, and I am disappointed that the paper may not ever be published.

Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Cheryl Gillan: If it is on this point, and the hon. Gentleman has more information, I shall give way to him.

Paul Flynn: The sad fact is that  Y Byd is no longer a practical proposition because of the collapse in circulation of print papers. It is very much a possibility that it can be web newspaper, or a handout given with other newspapers. However, for it to stand alone as a print newspaper is not a practical possibility.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Perhaps it is apposite, therefore, to ask the Minister of State if he will comment on the matter when he makes his winding-up speech.
	Another important matter in Wales, which the Secretary of State did not touch on, is that of law and order. In my experience, during the past two years policing has become harder in Wales. We feel that police should be out on our streets in Wales doing what they joined the police force to do: fighting crime. Instead, we are finding that all four of our police forces are fighting red tape and bureaucracy. That is why this party has advanced policies to scrap stop-and-search forms, and would certainly reduce the bureaucracy that our serving police officers face every day.
	The police are not just being asked to be pen-pushing bureaucrats, but seem to have been appointed as jailers. They have to use their cells to hold so many prisoners that even the Government are losing track of them. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is aware of this, but last month the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), had to write to me, informing me that he had provided me with incorrect figures on the number of prisoners who were being held in Welsh police stations. He corrected the figures, and had to revise the figure of prisoner nights upwards by 426. The total number of prisoners being held in custody cells last year in Wales was 4,200. That is a staggering increase, which puts unprecedented strain on police forces and budgets in Wales. I hope that the Secretary of State will make representations to his Cabinet colleague to consider this matter, because it has become such a burden that it is causing problems for many of our forces.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Lady agree that the other scandal with regard to justice in Wales is the fact that large tracts of land, including Montgomeryshire, do not have access to a courtroom? Having been promised a courtroom for Newtown many years ago, there has not been any significant action to construct it. Does she agree that in order for the justice system to work effectively, there has to be local access to courts so that lawyers do not have to drive their own defendants to the court, with all the inconvenience and unacceptable intrusion that that entails?

Cheryl Gillan: I confess that I am not intimately familiar with the specific case of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but that is also a matter the Minister could address in his winding-up speech. It is obviously one of great concern.

Roger Williams: The hon. Lady was talking about the budgets of the four police authorities. Does she agree that one of the real burdens on those budgets were the proposals to amalgamate all four police forces and the great amount of moneywasted money as it turned outspent on considering that change? The Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing has said that that process should never have gone forward at all.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman knows that I was very vocal on that subject at the time. I thought it was a complete waste of resources, time and effort. The process was abandoned, leaving four of our police forces much poorer, and although compensation was paid, it did not nearly meet the amount of money that had to be expended on a wasteful and useless administrative exercise. Quite frankly, the police have better things to do with their time.
	That matter is no different, however, from the issues we face in other areas of law and order, such as prison overcrowding. I hope that the Secretary of State will address that disgrace in all our prisons, and specifically in Welsh prisons. They are overcrowded and full to bursting. Prisoners have to be released early and we know that often prisoners are released early merely to reoffend.
	The Government have this great idea of huge, bright and shiny new prisons, but that is not the right solution for Wales or even for the UK. They may supply more prison places for a sort of factory system, but they will do nothing to rehabilitate prisoners and prevent them from reoffending. It remains a sad fact that there are no women's prisons in Wales, nor is there a prison in north Wales. Consequently, Welsh prisoners are often held far from home, are unable to rehabilitate themselves and are unable to keep those family contacts that are so important in getting a man or woman back on the straight and narrow.

Mark Pritchard: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the prisons crisis could be tackled if the 11,000 foreign prisoners in England and Wales who had committed specific crimes were considered for deportation?

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend knows that I used to speak about that subject in our Home Office team and that I felt strongly about it. It is amazing that the Government do not appear sufficiently competent to deport people, for whom there are deportation orders, at the end of their sentences. Worse, there are some categories of prisoners about whom negotiations should have taken place to ascertain what other arrangements could be made for many of themfor example, being held in prisons in their own countries. My hon. Friend therefore makes a valid point.
	Our police and prisons have suffered from Government incompetence.

Julie Morgan: The hon. Lady said that there is no women's prison in Wales. Does she support Baroness Corston's recommendations for far fewer women to be in prison? Most women in prison do not need to be there. Does the hon. Lady support developing a facility in Wales that addresses the many needs of women?

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Lady is pandering to my personal prejudices and views. There are too many women in prison, and that has a disproportionate effect because when a woman is locked up, the children are often deprived and put into care. We must be careful about our approach to women and criminality. When I examined the matter, I was pleased to visit some of the small prison units that were designed to ensure good educative processes as well as good rehabilitation facilities, which can be provided successfully in smaller units. The hon. Lady has given me an opportunity to reflect perhaps not a Front-Bench but a personal position on women in the criminal justice system.

Mark Williams: A fundamental pressure on the prison systemovercrowdingputs pressure on the education system in the Prison Service. Many prisonersI met some in Parc prisondespair as they wait unacceptable lengths of time to attend anger management courses. That does not help the process of rehabilitation.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman is right. People can start a cognitive behavioural therapy course but they do not necessarily finish it because they are moved to another prison. There is no point putting a man or woman in prison at a cost of 37,000 or 38,000 a year to receive no rehabilitation and have no hope.

Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend may know that the Welsh Affairs Committee visited Eastwood Park, the women's prison in Gloucestershire. The educators there do excellent work. One of the perspectives that they communicated to us is that they do not have long enough to work with some of the girls and young women who pass through that prison, such as those serving sentences of four, six or eight weeks. It is not long enough to tackle some of the underlying emotional problems that drive their addictions and criminality. Indeed, they build much stronger relationships and experience more successful outcomes with the girls and young women who serve longer sentences of three, six, nine months and more.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Care in sentencing and considering what needs to be done with an individual is important in the justice system, and I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.

Albert Owen: The hon. Lady paints a black picture of crime and justice in Wales. There are some good news stories, and she would realise that if she came to north Wales, especially north-west Wales, which has the highest detection rate in the United Kingdom. That is due to the extra investment in the police and in community support officers. Does she acknowledge that?

Cheryl Gillan: I was about to move on and cut out part of my speech because of the limited time available and the interventions that I have taken, but let me say that the hon. Gentleman is right about community support officers. I have been out on the beat with them in Wales and they make a tremendous contribution. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that.
	I am especially worried about the health service, not least because there seems to be an obsession with bureaucracy and targets. The Assembly Government have introduced 252 NHS targets, and I have to ask whether that has improved health care. However, I want to draw attention to a positive matter. Jonathan Morgan, the shadow Minister for Health and Social Services in the Assembly, is moving towards securing the first Back-Bench measure of the Assembly Government. The mental health reform legislative competence order, which will provide specific patient rights in mental health care, has been laid with the Assembly's unanimous approval. I hope that that again shows the Secretary of State that Welsh Conservatives are leading the agenda, when they can, with practical policies for Wales, and I hope that he shares my wish that the measure reaches the statute book soon.
	The Secretary of State mentioned the economic health of Wales, which is also crucial to its success. Sadly, after 10 years of a Labour Government, I do not perceive matters through the same rose-tinted spectacles as the right hon. Gentleman because Wales remains the poorest area of the United Kingdom. The recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report showed that no progress had been made on tackling child poverty in recent years. Worklessness and economic inactivity still blight too many communities in Wales. The figures that I mentioned in my intervention on the Secretary of State mean that many of our children still grow up in families where no one has ever worked. The decline in manufacturing has also badly affected the country.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Lady may be interested to learn that average gross weekly earnings in Wales are 472, compared with a UK average of 550. We are therefore a long way behind the national average.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point.
	On an optimistic note, I recently had the great pleasure of visiting GE Healthcare just outside Cardiff. I hope that the Secretary of State will make time to visit that facility. Its headquarters is in my constituency in England, so I have a direct link with it. I was thrilled by its education project, which takes young people from schools into a laboratory to see how things work there. Unless we can enthuse people about maths, science, English and education generally, we will not have the skilled work force in Wales that we need to keep good companies of high worth with highly skilled jobs such as GE Healthcare.
	Wales is a fantastic country for natural resources for energy and for producing highly valuable energy. I hope that the Under-Secretary will reaffirm in his winding-up speech the attitude of the Wales Office to the plans for the Severn barrage. The right hon. Member for Neath was keen on the Severn barrage project and I tried to get him interested in tidal pools and lagoons. I hope that the Under-Secretary will take the opportunity to let us know whether the thinking and overwhelming support for the project remain the same because I want a slight shift of emphasis in the Department's policy.
	I congratulate TranscoI flew along the pipeline to see the completion of 115 miles of gas pipeline from the liquefied natural gas terminal in Milford Haven, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb). The project was delivered on time and on budget. To revert to an earlier subject, that company is also doing tremendous work to rehabilitate prisoners and has reduced reoffending rates in the groups of prisoners that it has helped into work from more than 70 per cent. to 7 per cent. I commend its work to the Secretary of State.
	Our land in Wales is vital and our farmers are the natural guardians of our countryside. This year has been a tough year for farming, with the threat of foot and mouth and bluetongue hanging over many farmers. We have a proud agricultural tradition that needs Government support. It also needs the respect of Government, not the sort of cynical betrayal that resulted in a leaked copy of a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister's speech, which promised compensation to Welsh farmers when there was a prospect of an imminent election, only for it to be withdrawn.
	Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss what we can do jointly to push for clearance for a product of sheep meat called smokies? There is a treatment of sheep meat called smokies that could make a real difference to the income of our sheep farmers, but the process of legalising it seems to be long and laborious. The Farmers Union of Wales has told me that the process could and should be speeded up, so that Welsh farmers wanting to earn a legitimate income will not lose out to illegal and possibly dangerous imports from overseas.

Paul Murphy: I should be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss what seems to be a very important issue.

Cheryl Gillan: I am most grateful for that positive intervention.
	To conclude, I see Wales as poised at a crossroads. For many years, Labour blamed any problem in Wales on the Tories but now, after 10 years of a Labour Government, there is nowhere to hide. The Secretary of State has entered his post at a time when standards in schools are low, crime is rising, prisons are overflowing, taxes are rising and manufacturing jobs are falling, and when we have burgeoning hospital waiting lists. Labour said that things could only get better, but that has not proved to be the case.
	Conservatives have been building their support steadily, winning and providing a growing alternative to Labour and now the new Labour-Plaid Government in the Assembly. I want Wales to share the hope and optimism, which was referred to earlier, that is evident in the fantastic performance of our rugby team in the six nations tournament. I will join the Secretary of State in wishing the team well this St. David's day, and I believe that they are going to win.
	Our party has increased its votes at every election since 1999. We offer the hope and optimism that Wales deserves. We are fighting more seats than ever before in local elections throughout Wales. I hope that we can build on our success. I believe that we offer the alternative to the right hon. Gentleman's Government. When it comes to the local elections, I hope that people will look closely at our candidates and give us a chance to prove it.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind all right hon. and hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions?

Peter Hain: May I say how delighted I am to see you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a great Welsh woman presiding over this debate? May I also express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for what he said about me? I congratulate him on getting the job, despite the surreal, nightmarish circumstances in which I left it. I cannot think of anyone whom I would more like to see holding the post. I replaced him in Wales and in Northern Ireland, and now he has replaced me in Wales. Things are becoming almost politically incestuous. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who has always shown great decency in all the jobs that we have worked on together.
	Over the past 11 years, the Welsh economy has been transformed, because of the energy, innovation and dynamism of Welsh businesses, and the skill and hard work of Welsh women and men, combined with the unprecedented annual rises in public investment and economic stability ensured by our Government. Economically and culturally, Wales has enjoyed a renaissance, after the grim decades of mass unemployment and business failure. We should all celebrate that because, working together, weour Labour Governments in Westminster and Cardiff, business and all Welsh employeeshave made it possible for Wales to walk tall with a spring in our step.
	However, we are still nothing like where we should be to compete with the competition from eastern and central Europe, let alone from the emerging Asian economies and especially our new global economic partners and the superpowers of the future, China and Indiacountries of more than 2 billion people, producing 5 million new university graduates a year, two thirds of whom are graduates in science, technology, and information and communications technology. The central challenge that we face is to transform the Welsh economy by building a much bigger private sector. Unless we do that, we will not be able to achieve the world class success that Wales is capable of and deserves.
	If I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have set out these ideas and the argument in more detail on my website, www.peterhain.org. They will also be published as an internet pamphlet, at www.wales2020.com.
	One of the elements essential to Wales's success to date has been the huge real-terms rises in public investment, with the Welsh budget increasing to almost 16 billion by 2011, some 130 per cent. higher in cash terms than in 1997. But that era is coming to an end. Britain has never had a period of such long and consistent steeply rising public spending. However, that cannot continue without unbalancing the economy, causing a return to the instability, high inflation and high interest rates that we inherited from the Conservatives and that plagued all British Governments for a generation and more. That is why the next comprehensive spending review period, from 2008 to 2011, will still see real-terms increases in public investment, but at a lower rate.
	That poses challenges for the Welsh Assembly Government, because their entire life has so far been spent under the umbrella of unparalleled real-terms budget increases. From now on, the kind of efficiency measures and reforms that Minister for Finance Andrew Davies is rightly insisting upon will be needed to reduce inefficiency and bureaucracy, and release funds significantly to improve front-line services. It will also be necessary to exercise much tougher choices over priorities.
	Those who claim that the Government's public spending programme has inhibited the growth of the private sector are wrong. Huge public investment in private construction, for example, has stimulated it, while five times more Welsh private sector jobs have been created in the past 11 years than in the public sector. There are many other sectors in which Welsh businesses have themselves benefited and created Welsh jobs by providing services or selling products to the Welsh public sector on the back of rising spending since 1997. That is a stark contrast with the economic instability and public spending cuts experienced from 1979 to 1997, when huge numbers of Welsh businesses went bankrupt and unemployment soared.
	However, according to the Library, estimates show that public spending in Wales is equivalent to 59 per cent. of gross domestic product. The figure for Wales is higher than any other part of the UK except Northern Ireland, where it is 64 per cent., although the figure in north-east England is similar. The equivalent estimate for Scotland is about 50 per cent., while the UK average is about 44 per cent. Wales's ratio of public spending to GDP is broadly similar to, or perhaps slightly higher than, the highest ratio among OECD countries. In Wales, 23.7 per cent. of employees are in the public sector, compared with the UK average of 20.2 per cent. Again, that is similar to the figure for the north-east, but lower than the figure for Northern Ireland, at 29.1 per cent. All other areas of the UK have lower shares of public sector employment.
	Public spending is high partly to correct the legacy of historically high levels of relative deprivation, of sparsity, of geographic remoteness, and of the ill health that is a legacy of Wales's industrial heritage, especially mining. Moreover, our Government have, rightly, been deliberately moving public jobs from the overheated south-east to Wales.
	The argument that I make is therefore emphatically not for the cuts in public spending so beloved of the right, still less that the public sector in Wales is too big. Indeed, I am arguing the exact opposite. The real issue is that the private sector is too small. If both Welsh living standards and the economic competitiveness that underpins our prosperity are to grow as we all want, the private sector needs to grow significantly and at a relatively much faster rate. To achieve at least equilibrium with the rest of the UK and the OECD countries, Wales must move towards a private sector of around 55 per cent. of Welsh GDP. To achieve that in the next 15 to 20 years, we will need year-on-year growth that is around 1 per cent. faster than the UK averageno mean feat.
	It is no good simply leaving the task of catch-up to market forces and the private sector, as the right insists. They have a critical role to play, of course, but so does the Government in London and Cardiff, by targeting public investment not only on the soft side of public spendingthat is, on care and servicesbut on the sharp side, on skills, infrastructure, technology, research and entrepreneurialism. At the height of the industrial revolution 150 years ago, Wales had in Merthyr Tydfil what was considered the most technologically advanced town on the planet, with the most productive ironworks in the world and the development of the first rail engine. We now need new Merthyrs for this century, leading the way in the new technologies of the future.
	Although we need higher labour productivity, Wales cannot and should not try to compete on cheaper labour costs, with China and India, for example, paying manufacturing workers just 60p an hour. As Rhodri Morgan has so eloquently saidand as the Secretary of State repeatedthe Wales of the future will be a small but clever country, with private sector growth in the right areas, and raised levels of educational attainment, skills and innovation to add value. At present, although Welsh spending on research and development is rising, it remains too low, and this must be addressed urgently, with ever closer partnership betweenand ever more targeted spending bythe Governments at Westminster and Cardiff, our universities, colleges and Welsh businesses.
	Our vision is for a Wales that acts as a centre where companies can innovate in partnership with our educational institutions. I identify seven immediate priorities. First, we must secure graduate retention, develop technical skills and inspire entrepreneurship from school upwards. Secondly, we must make tough public spending decisions, with a moratorium on handouts and a switch to supporting greater competitiveness. Thirdly, we must compete in the high added-value areas such as financial services, electronics, nanotechnology, biosciences, molecular mechanics and information and communications technology, with many more start-ups and high-tech businesses. Fourthly, we must support vital new energies, including renewables and biofuels. Fifthly, we need to support our economy with a welfare system that gets people off benefit and into work, and provides our work force with the skills that they need to progress in employment. Sixthly, we need to ensure that we have a political, economic and social culture in Wales that is truly internationalist. Finally, we need smarter government, local and national, with a more dynamic Welsh public service.
	Universities need to be at the heart of our economic growth. And that can be done, as Singapore, a country roughly the same size as Wales, has demonstrated: on a per capita income basis, it is now one of the top 20 countries in the world. Our universities are already making a significant contribution to business, and substantial increases in the Government's science and innovation budgets are enabling them to improve this still further, as I have seen myself during visits to Cardiff, Swansea and Bangor universities, for example.

David Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Hain: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I will give way to Members on both sides of the House who have treated me with decency over the past few weeks.
	I have also visited the North East Wales institute of higher educationNEWIin Wrexham, and I look forward to its getting its university status. The emergence of techniums throughout Wales is hugely important in exploiting the talents of Welsh graduates to enable them to start up new companies, and in providing excellence for the knowledge economy that is our future with new, world-class employment opportunities for young skilled people, whether from Wales or elsewhere, especially in growing and important areas such as financial services, nanotechnology, biosciences and ICT.
	By inspiring our young people, we can add to the natural desire to succeed that is already there. The Government need to prioritise funding to enable our universities, colleges and schools to provide much better foundations and opportunities for these potential business men and women of tomorrow, to enable them to go on to realise their aspirations.

Betty Williams: Would my right hon. Friend acknowledge that, as part of the equation on which he is focusing, European convergence funding has been extremely important in creating tremendous opportunities for the economy and job creation? He played a great part in that in the early days, when he was a Minister in the then Welsh Office, when we managed to get Conwy and Denbighshire on the objective 1 map, having previously failed to do so.

Peter Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She was one of those who most articulately persuaded me to extend the boundaries when I was in the old Welsh Office.
	Wales has an abundance of natural resources, with a coastline and landscape that lends itself to a variety of offshore and onshore wind and other renewable energy developments, including wave and tidal. The Government are moving forward with a feasibility study into the potential for a barrage across the Severn estuary that would generate fully 5 per cent. of UK electricity needs. It would be the biggest renewable energy project by some distance on our island, creating tens of thousands jobs, first in construction, then permanently.

Lembit �pik: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I should like to praise him on his time in the Wales Office. There is a meeting on wind power tomorrow evening in Trefeglwys, one of my local communities. Does he agree that it is important to take local considerations into account and that, if there are strong feelings either for or against a wind construction in a local community, they should be taken into account in the planning process? In the past, the feelings of the community have not been considered in that way.

Peter Hain: Obviously, local wishes need to be listened to, but what we do not want is local nimbyism paralysing renewable energy developments.

John Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks about the Severn tidal barrage. Is he aware that, should the Government decide, after the two-year feasibility study, to proceed with the project, it will almost certainly come to my constituency? Coupled with the recent announcement on the defence training academy, we could acquire 36 billion of investment in the Vale of Glamorgan as a result.

Peter Hain: That would be partly due to my hon. Friend's excellent work.
	There is also a potential for growth in the Welsh coal industry, but that will not, and should not, happen unless Welsh coal becomes green coal. The Governments in Westminster and Cardiff should work together to develop innovative carbon capture and storage procedures, as well as ensuring that we have clean coal power stations and realising the enormous benefits that could be gained by exporting to countries such as India and China.
	Although new technologies and back-up services are the source of potentially huge numbers of new Welsh jobs, there are currently some 50,000 vacancies across Wales, because we do not have enough people with the right skills or because they are not being given the right support to fill the vacancies. We need to move tens of thousands more people off benefits and into work, tailoring support to their needs. Opportunities should be maximised by Jobcentre Plus in Wales and by the Welsh Assembly Government to match European convergence funding and to create many more new skills and job preparation schemes in west Wales and the valleys.
	Despite having come down in the past few years, the level of economic inactivity is still far too high in Wales, reflecting the dismal heritage of the 1980s and 1990s, when the number of people on incapacity benefits more than trebled and mass unemployment was a curse. When I say that the majority of people on incapacity benefit could work, and should work, it is not an attack on them. It is an attack on an outdated system that deprives them of the opportunity to share in the rewards of work that go far beyond financial independence, important though that is. Work is inherently good for people of all ages. It is good for their health, good for families and good for communities.
	Clearly, government at all levels will have to raise its game. Decisions need to be taken more quickly and the Government's streamlining of planning for infrastructure and energy projects is vital to overcome endemic nimbyism. This is certainly not about riding roughshod over local views, however. It is about grasping the nettle and acknowledging that strategic policies need to be implemented much more quickly if Wales is not to fall further behind.
	Business also needs much smarter local government, modelled, I believe, on Neath Port Talbot council's record of excellence for quick decisions, implemented speedily. The culture of cautious conservatism that is so rife in Welsh public servicesfrom the civil service to local councilsneeds radical reform if we are to build a truly competitive economy. As I know from working with them, there are many fine Welsh public servants, including in the Wales Office. But, for Wales to succeed, our risk-averse, can't-do culture must be replaced by a dynamic, can-do culture.
	Wales continues to improve, but we cannot stand still. The alternative is to fall back. We must think and act globally, not merely nationally. We must be a small country with a big global vision. Using all our institutions and talents, we must make the most of new skills, new technologies and new opportunities. We must re-prioritise our public spending to prioritise sharp rather than soft services, favouring skills, technological innovation and business support rather than free schemes. We must also rapidly grow the private sector so that it overtakes the public sector in size and creates a vibrant, more balanced economy and an even brighter, stronger future for a Wales that is reaching up to be genuinely world class.

Roger Williams: It is a great pleasure to debate Welsh issues in this Chamberan opportunity that we too rarely have. May I also say what a pleasure it is to follow the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) and to put on the record my appreciation of his helpful co-operation with me when he was in office? Today, he has demonstrated his great knowledge not only of the Welsh scene and the opportunities available to Wales and Welsh people, but of the potential impediments to the necessary developments. He is very realistic in his assessment, but he is nearly always optimistic for Walesan approach that I greatly appreciate. The right hon. Gentleman will also be remembered for taking the devolution settlement in the right directionperhaps not at the pace that some of us wanted, but certainly in the right direction. He will be well remembered for that.
	I should also like to put on the record how much I and other hon. Members enjoyed the service in St. Mary Undercroft. It was a memorable experience, to which the contribution of the children has already been mentioned. I would also like to reflect a little on the homily preached by the archdeacon by saying how apt it is to celebrate the life of St. David and, indeed, to celebrate the Welsh nation on that special day. We should not be niggardly or parsimonious in our celebrations; we should be truly generous in pointing out that nationality is not just for our benefit, but something to share with others, including the United Kingdom and, indeed, farther and greater reaches across the world.
	I welcomed the Secretary of State for Wales to his new post yesterday and I do so again. He has served in various positions in government with great distinction. I must, however, raise some concerns about his role. I have no doubt whatever that the Secretary of State will work with colleagues in Westminster and Cardiff on transferring legislative competence to the Assembly, but I expect Wales's representative in the Cabinet to be passionate about devolution and committed to extending the Assembly's role. The Secretary of State's views on devolution, however, are on the record and I find it difficult to believe that he will be able to reconcile his past comments with the changes that Liberal Democrats feel are necessary. The Government must do away with the halfway house that they have created, whereby Assembly Members have to come begging cap in hand for the power to make their own laws.
	The Secretary of State has been keen to shake off his tag of being a devo-sceptic and prefers to call himself a devo-realist; well, here is a dose of realism for him. In the 10 years since Wales has had the Assembly a great deal has been achieved, often on a cross-party basis. Wales has rejected Labour's regressive top-up fee regime and has made bus travel free for the over-60s and the disabled. The Assembly has also made health spending a priority and has introduced a vital scheme to help Wales's post offices stay sustainable.
	There are still many areas where the Assembly should be making decisions but cannot. For instance, Wales should be able to take a lead on combating climate change by developing its own immense natural resources of wave and wind power in order to provide clean renewable energy and by encouraging energy efficiency through setting better building standards and introducing smart metering. On large-scale energy projects, however, including new nuclear build, decisions still lie with the UK Government, not in Wales. Building regulations are also a reserved matter. It is frustrating because, with the right tools, Wales could become a Mecca for green energy.
	As a realist, the Secretary of State should recognise that if the new devolution settlement works at the moment, it is built on shifting sands. There is a progressive consensus in Wales, but to protect it, the Secretary of State would do well to keep his eyes on what happens in Westminster.

Ian Lucas: I always listen very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say and I know that he is a committed European. In an age where we are talking about the creation of a European energy policy and developing closer working relationships in respect of energy, does it really make sense to fracture UK energy policy?

Roger Williams: I think that the hon. Gentleman has a different view of devolution from me. As far as I am concerned, devolution is not about separation and isolation, but about developing good practices wherever powers are devolved and sharing them with others, also building on their ambitions for that particular policy area.

Elfyn Llwyd: Subsidiarity.

Roger Williams: Absolutely.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend mentions the environmental agenda. Does he agree that one disappointing aspect of the Secretary of State's otherwise excellent speech was a failure to prioritise the environmental opportunities for Wales? Our mutual friend, Mick Bates, Welsh Assembly Member for Montgomeryshire, and others have made it absolutely clear that by building on the Centre for Alternative Technology, the Cardigan Bay project, the Severn barrage and so on, Wales could become an environmental leader in Europe, consistent with being in the UK. The potential is absolutely enormous, particularly if the Government and the Welsh Assembly Government, working in tandem with the private sector, give the necessary lead.

Roger Williams: Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is all about building up partnerships rather than acting in isolation.

Paul Flynn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Scotland has advanced further down the road of renewable energy than any other part of the UK, and that one of the reasons for that is that Scotland has taken its own decisions and is developing its own expertise?

Roger Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. Scotland has huge potential for hydroelectricity and has really built on it.
	I was saying how important it is for the Secretary of State to pay attention to what happens in Westminster. Currently, the Governments in Westminster and in Cardiff can work as friends, but it is arrogant to assume that that will always be the case. We should make the devolution settlement as watertight as possible, so that the progressive work of the Assembly is not blocked by a hostile Government in London. As some London MPs keep telling us, if they had their way, the Assembly would not even exist.

Lembit �pik: On the environment and devolution, does my hon. Friend agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) saidthat Wales could be the environmental capital of Europe? One good test of the effectiveness of the devolution settlement is the extent to which the Assembly is able to generate that sort of image and reputation for Wales, not least because we have the Centre for Alternative Technology in Montgomeryshire to help guide and lead the way forward.

Roger Williams: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am well aware of the important work going on in that centre, based in Machynlleth in his constituency. It has proved to be a leader in developing strategies for alternative technology and alternative energy sources.
	Plaid Cymru and Labour have set up a convention to look at new powers for the Assembly, but we do not even know the terms of reference

Elfyn Llwyd: It has not been drafted yet.

Roger Williams: I know. Exactly; that is my point: some are dragging their feet on this, while the people of Wales are keen to get on with it. Every time we have a poll and the people are asked whether they want the same powers as the Scottish Parliament, the answer is definitely yes.

Elfyn Llwyd: As a member of this esteemed joint committee with the Labour partyI see some of the relevant Labour Members in their placesI can assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been no dragging of feet. We will be coming to a swift conclusion in the next few days. I hope that I have not said too much for our chairman.

Roger Williams: That is really welcome news. I was going to say that they appear to be kicking the issue into the long grass, but perhaps the grass is not as long as I anticipated. Let us hope that they now find the ball and get up and run with it.

Ian Lucas: Is not the hon. Gentleman's real problem the fact that whenever the Liberal Democrats are in a position to go into partnership with someone, they do not really want to go into partnership with anyone?

Roger Williams: We have been in partnership in government in Wales on one occasion and we are also leading three local authorities in Wales in partnership with others and running another as a minority administration. We have some experience of partnership [Interruption.] Despite the comments of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), I detect a note of caution in Plaid Cymru. At a press conference in Westminster a few weeks ago, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy told journalists that he was content with the status quo

Elfyn Llwyd: No, I didn't.

Roger Williams: for the time being.

Elfyn Llwyd: No, no. If I am to be misquoted, I think I should correct the misquotation. What I said was that I was not obsessed with referendums, and that our first priority was making the present system work properly.

Roger Williams: I am all for making the present system work, but I am also all for changing it. We must make it work because it is the system that we have

Simon Hughes: But we need a better one.

Roger Williams: Absolutely. I still think that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is changing his mind a little.

Elfyn Llwyd: No.

Roger Williams: He is a little bit cautious.

Elfyn Llwyd: No.

Roger Williams: The hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State are very distinguished politicians and very highly thought of, but they have become almost indistinguishable when it comes to a matter on which they would have crossed swords on other occasions.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman does not realise how offensive I find this!

Roger Williams: Yes, I do. I am trying to be as offensive as possible. This development is probably a symptom of the growing co-operation between Labour and Plaid Cymru in the Assembly.
	We do not even knowalthough we may benefit from a leak from the hon. Gentleman at some pointwhether the convention will examine the unfair Barnett formula, which fails to reflect the far greater demand on Welsh public services. My guess is that it will not.

Elfyn Llwyd: I should be surprised if it did, but one point of agreement between us and the Labour party is that there should be a review of the Barnett formula, and that is being worked on separately.

Roger Williams: I am glad to hear it, even if the convention is not involved.

Ian Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Roger Williams: I will give way once more.

Ian Lucas: In fact, the agreement is between the Labour Assembly group and the Plaid Cymru Assembly group.

Roger Williams: We know that. What we are trying to do is tease out a bit of information. It seems to be in a black hole at the moment.

Lembit �pik: Does not the piece of information that my hon. Friend has managed to tease out merely confound our understanding even further? I know that Plaid Cymru would like a change in the Barnett formula, but on not a single occasion have I heard a single Welsh Minister express agreement with that. Perhaps when the Under-Secretary of State winds up the debate he will tell us whether or not Welsh Ministers support their Welsh Labour colleagues, who presumably want the formula to be changed.

Roger Williams: No doubt the Under-Secretary of State will devote a large proportion of his speech to the Barnett formula.
	Because of the geography and demography of Wales, its public services are more expensive to deliver. As a number of Members have pointed out, the country still suffers from a legacy of ill health stemming from its industrial past. The position is simple: Wales has greater needs, and they will continue to be ignored and neglected for as long as the Government continue to use the discredited Barnett formula. It has short-changed Wales for ages, as even its creator Lord Barnett now recognises. We must draw a line under that old, backward-looking funding system, and look forward to a progressive and fair system that takes account of the needs of Wales. In fact, I believe that the Prime Minister is already turning his back on the Barnett formula. The Big Lottery Fund now uses a needs-based formula to distribute grants, which gives Wales a much higher level of funding.

Paul Murphy: Whatever the pros and cons of the Barnett system, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a system that gives the people of England just over 6,000 a head and the people of Wales just over 7,000 a head is not a bad deal for the Welsh people?

Roger Williams: I am glad that the Secretary of State is now engaging in the discussion. We have seen no such engagement before.
	All we are seeking is a fair formula. We are quite prepared to embark on a needs-based formula and see what it delivers for Wales. We believe that it would give Wales a better deal, but we hear what the Secretary of State says.

Cheryl Gillan: As the hon. Gentleman is so determined to embark on a needs-based formula, can he give us his calculation of what it would deliver per head in Wales?

Roger Williams: No, but we are committed to a fair process for the distribution of public money.

Simon Hughes: Across the United Kingdom.

Roger Williams: Yes. We want fairness across the United Kingdom, not just fairness for Wales.  [Interruption.] We shall see what happens. Let us engage in the debate. The Conservatives are not even prepared to do that.  [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Could the debate be conducted in the correct manner?

Roger Williams: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Perhaps the leaders of all the Welsh parties at Westminster would like to join me in a round-table discussion of the Barnett formula and what can be done about it. Opening up the discussion might improve it.

Simon Hughes: Just to wrap up the issue, will my hon. Friend confirm that the Liberal Democrats agree that colleagues from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should sit down with a blank sheet of paper and renegotiate, in order to produce a fair constitutional and financial settlement for the future that will be supported and credible?

Roger Williams: Absolutely. Then people would know that the system was fair, and not an arbitrary process.
	Welsh questions yesterday focused on cross-border health issues, which affect many of us on both sides of Offa's Dyke. We need to ensure not just that we have high-quality health care in Wales, but that our constituents can have treatment that is convenient for them. I greatly appreciated the Secretary of State's response yesterday, when I raised several cases with him.
	We need to work closely with English hospitals. They rely on Welsh patients for sustainability, and if we work together we can safeguard services for people in rural areas on both sides of the border. Given that 14 per cent. of elective surgery in Hereford is performed on Welsh patients, we must work together to keep English border hospitals open and ensure that a service is provided for everyone. As I think will be clear from my earlier remarks, I am a passionate devolutionist, but that does not mean that we cannot co-operate for the good of our local communities. My Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Assembly have secured a debate on this important matter which will take place next week, and I hope that all parties both here and in Cardiff will work together to ensure that those vital cross-border health services are maintained.
	During Prime Minister's questions yesterday I raised the issue of post offices, which is of concern to all Members but especially to those of us who represent rural areas. In such areas, post offices are much more than places where people can buy stamps. They provide a social service, and perform an important function in the community. I am particularly worried about possible closures of post offices that are also shops. In such cases, when the post office closes the community loses the shop as well.
	Next week I shall find out which post offices in my constituency face closure. I await the news with some trepidation. I have always been slightly confused by the process of setting an arbitrary figure for closures and then working out which post offices should be included in it. Given the rural nature of much of Wales, I should like to be reassured that we will not face more than our fair share of closures because of the nature of the closure programme.
	I asked the Prime Minister about the possibility of a moratorium on post office closures so that local communities could use the powers in the Sustainable Communities Act 2007. The Act applies only to England, but there are other powers in the strategy developed by the Assembly Government. Those powers must be given time to work. People are fed up with being told what to do by bureaucrats sitting hundreds of miles away. The Government supported the new powers; if they really support local decision making, why do they not put their money where their mouth is and let the people decide?
	Those same communities have also suffered badly in the past year from foot and mouth and bluetongue outbreaks. On foot and mouth, farmers will receive compensation from the Assembly Government, but the Assembly should receive compensation from the Westminster Government because it was an establishment licensed by DEFRA that allowed the outbreak in the first place.
	Welsh farmers do not get a fair deal at the hands of supermarkets and we are pressing the Government to accept recent recommendations to create a food ombudsman and to ensure changes. Poverty is still a big issue in Wales, which still has the highest percentage of UK pensioners living in poverty. This is a scandalous problem that can be tackled only by giving pensioners a citizen's pension, access to free personal care and a system of benefits that properly reflects the rising cost of fuel.
	Liberal Democrats will pursue these issues but we think that devolution is at their heartgiving the Welsh Assembly primary law-making powers so that it can address the issues directly in a method that is most appropriate to the situation in Wales.

Hywel Francis: May I first pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who was at one time my Member of Parliament? He has made, in the great tradition of this House, a fine speech, one that the people of Wales would be proud of, in the sense that he located Wales in a United Kingdom and an internationalist context. He has served Wales well as Secretary of State and has served democratic devolution well. I am sure that he will continue to do so in the future.
	I also wish to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his speech, which was as erudite, thought-provoking and challenging as his first speech as Secretary of State at the Welsh day debate on 2 March 2000. On that occasion, he developed a crucial theme that was projected by another fine son of the Monmouthshire valleys, Aneurin Bevan, in the very first Welsh day debate on 17 October 1944. In 1944, in 2000 and in 2008, that recurring theme is summed up in the words of Aneurin Bevan in 1944 about the inter-war years in the south Wales valleys:
	Our problem was to try to get enough political leverage to secure attention for our difficulties.[ Official Report, 17 October 1944; Vol. 43, c. 2313.]
	From the perspective of the Welsh Affairs Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing, I see that challenge of political leverage very clearly: what is the best political leverage that we can achieve for Wales today?
	The Secretary of State argued in 2000 for a strategic partnership between Westminster and the Assembly, and he did so again today. In 2000, he was anticipating what the Prime Minister said recently about there being no Welsh-only, Scottish-only or English-only solution to our problems. The political leverage of 1944 has evolved into the strategic partnerships of today.
	The Secretary of State placed great emphasis in 2000 on policies that delivered for the people and suggested that
	if we fail the people, the democratic institutions that we cherish, and have only just established, will fail as well.[ Official Report, 2 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 601.]
	That is the theme that I wish to pursue today as the Chairman of the Committee: Wales as an historic nation and as, in the words of a Welsh politician in the 1990s, an open region, looking outwards and seeking partnerships in the United Kingdom, in Europe and in the world, a global Wales rather than an introspective fortress Wales.
	I am very hopeful that the all-Wales convention under the chairmanship of Sir Emyr Jones-Parry will have that wider vision, too. I believe that the Secretary of State has a unique opportunity and role in this context, representing Wales in the Cabinet, in Westminster and in Whitehall, and representing those institutions in Wales. In chairing the British-Irish Council and the Cabinet committee on the English regions, he has a pivotal role in bringing together and making sense of the hitherto asymmetrical and fragmented devolution across the UK.
	The Welsh Affairs Committee recently published its annual report. In many ways, it is a series of snapshots of the evolving devolutionary world. We continue to scrutinise the Secretary of State and the Wales Office and we look forward to him coming before us in the next month or so for that purpose. Through a series of inquiries, we scrutinise various Government Departments in respect of their policies as they affect Wales. Our major inquiry on globalisation and its impact on Wales, and our forthcoming cross-border inquiry focusing on health, education and transport will no doubt result in UK and Welsh Ministers appearing before us.
	This is our principal preoccupation: an examination of how Wales relates to the rest of the UK and the rest of the world. We have nevertheless, under the Government of Wales Act, taken a new and additional responsibility of engaging in pre-legislative scrutiny, scrutinising legislative competence orders in council either jointly with Assembly Committees or on our own. We have already completed reports on additional learning needs and domiciliary care.
	Much has been said, including today, about the process and some colleagues have rightly questioned the volume of work, the nature of the scrutiny and related issues. As Chairman of the Committee, all I would say is that we are in the very early stages of a new democratic process. We welcome the opportunity of working from time to time with our Assembly colleagues and we will regularly review the process and the volume of work within it. I welcome the comments made by the Secretary of State earlier.

Roger Williams: Everyone in the Chamber values the work of the Committee but does the hon. Gentleman feel that the Committee will be able to provide full scrutiny of the legislation coming out of the Assembly, along with the valuable work that the Committee does in monitoring the work of the Wales Office and Welsh issues?

Hywel Francis: As someone said of the effects of the French revolution, It is too early to say. That is all I wish to say at the moment. It is absolutely certain that our primary scrutiny role will be of UK Government Departments and their impact on Wales. That will be paramount to us and will continue to be so while I chair the Committee.
	Our work in recent years on prisons, defence, police, globalisation andunder the wise chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones)on manufacturing and trade and on young people is testimony to the effectiveness of the work of the Committee. I thank Committee members, past and present, for that.
	I am certain, too, that the forthcoming inquiry on cross-border issues will be of great value to the people of Wales. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and others for raising the matter with us.
	There is considerable interest in the forthcoming inquiry that begins on Tuesday, an interest that crosses the border. Many people in England as well as Wales are keenly looking forward to the inquiry. I ask hon. Members to consider just one aspect of the inquiryhealthand the number of policy issues that probably we will examine: different policy and performance management regimes and targets, different payment systems, prescription charges or the lack of them, resource allocation, differing attitudes to foundation hospitals. The list is endless. In that respect, the landmark agreement on 5 March between the Welsh Assembly and the west midlands, which deals with a range of public services, is welcome.
	The dual challenge involves ensuring, first, that policies are not only different, but result in better services, and, secondly, coherence across the border through partnership in, for example, a national health service that seeks to achieve fairness and equality for everyone throughout the United Kingdom. Solutions that do not have that wider vision and that do not look beyond our borders are doomed to failure.
	During our globalisation inquiry, it was evident that the challenges posed by economic inactivity, which has been mentioned, fuel poverty, skills enhancement, university research funding, carers' rights, combating xenophobia and racism, migrant labour andthis is the most important matterwar and peace cannot be addressed by Wales-only solutions. Many of us recently met young people from youth groups all over Wales and from ysgol gyfun Rhydywaun in the Cynon valley at Westminster. They made it clear that they inhabit global Wales rather than fortress Wales, and I felt that they are already good and active citizens of Wales, the United Kingdom and the world.
	Sara Pickard from Mencap Cymru has thrown down a challenge to Welsh MPs. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham was present and listening attentively when she asked that question, which I will repeat today: what are Welsh MPs doing to help young people with learning difficulties obtain employment opportunities? Sara obviously feels that we must all work in partnership to support the vulnerable and marginalised in our society in order to provide a voice for them and to achieve justice.

Stephen Crabb: On supporting the marginalised and achieving justice, will the Welsh Affairs Committee Chairman explain why he put his name to the early-day motion supporting the serial human rights abuser Fidel Castro, who imprisons homosexuals, tortures political opponents and is guilty of summarily executing people?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating Welsh affairs.

Hywel Francis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David), who is not in his place at the moment, for organising that visit by young people. I also thank Sara Pickard, who is Mencap Cymru's partners in politics officer, for her excellent work across Walesshe is a fine ambassador for young people in Wales. Bodies such as Mencap Cymru and the Shaw Trust need to be encouraged to build partnerships with the Welsh Assembly Government and the United Kingdom Government in order to achieve their fine objectives.
	The Secretary of State has emphasised the importance of partnerships. I want to draw hon. Members' attention to the work of my local authority, which is arguably the best in Wales, Labour-led Neath Port Talbot county borough council. It has recently attracted the establishment of a new Amazon distribution centre, which involves 1,200 jobs, encouraged the imaginative Prince's Trust Coed Darcy housing development and transformed the Afan valley into a major leisure and tourist destination, particularly in the case of the mountain bike centre at Glyncorrwg. Its strategic partnerships with the local health board, the voluntary sector, the Welsh Assembly Government, the UK Government and European bodies are paying rich dividends for local communities.
	Today is about how we can best deliver a better tomorrow for the people of Wales. We can do so by deconstructing and reconstructing our historic nation to build a more open, tolerant, fulfilled and diverse society, valuing, as Aneurin Bevan said, our rich local life at the same time as a wide cosmopolitanism. Sixty years ago this year, Aneurin Bevan and a Labour Government created the national health service, which is arguably our greatest gift to the United Kingdom and the world.
	Fifty years ago this year, Aneurin Bevan welcomed the great humanitarian Paul Robeson to the National Eisteddfod in his Ebbw Vale constituency. The all-Welsh rule was suspended to allow those two great sons of Wales to speak at what Aneurin Bevan called a monument to civilisation, the National Eisteddfod. Bevan and Robeson had a simple message: Wales is at its best when it speaks to the world and not to itself. They did that through their purposeful lives, and we honour their memory today, when Wales speaks through Westminster to the world. As the Archdeacon of Bangor, the venerable Meurig Llwyd Williams, said this morning in the fine St. David's day service, which has been mentioned several times, St. David's day is
	a time to dream of a better Wales within a liberated world.

David Davies: I add my congratulations to the new Secretary of State for Wales, who will do his utmost to help people. However, he faces numerous challenges, partly as a result of the policies that his Government have enacted in the past 10 years.
	The Secretary of State mentioned so-called second-class Members of Parliament. I believe that he is a Unionist and that his views and mine on the importance of Wales remaining an integral part of the United Kingdom are probably very close. However, I cannot see how it is possible to continue with the current arrangements whereby Welsh and Scottish Members vote on matters on which they do not have direct representationthey vote on the health service, education and local government in England. As a Unionist, surely the Secretary of State recognises that that is bound to cause enormous tension and is likely to lead to the further break-up and disintegration of the United Kingdom. Preventing Members of Parliament from voting on matters that affect other nations within the United Kingdom will give strength to the Union, which most Government Members and all Conservative Members support.
	One of the first challenges created by this Government was the change to the funding formula for local authorities, which has left some local authorities much worse off. The changes were subtle, but the new formula for local government, which was set up by the Welsh Assembly, has channelled money away from rural local authorities into more urban ones. The methods were subtle but, for example, the weighting accorded to sparsity in the previous formula has been significantly reduced, and the manner in which sparsity is calculated has also been changed. Instead of considering how close a settlement is to the largest major town, the distance is calculated not by road but as the crow flies, which is disadvantageous in an area with lots of valleys.
	The formula has also altered the emphasis placed on the number of elderly people in an area. Previously, the number of elderly people was accorded a large weighting, which is right because, unfortunately, as we get older we become more likely to require the services of our local authority. Any formula that does not give significant weighting to local authorities with large numbers of elderly people will be fundamentally flawed. Monmouthshire has many retired people, so we are suffering the effects of that. There is also a fundamental fault in the method used for calculating deprivation. It is arguable whether deprivation should be a factor in deciding how much money local authorities have, but if that is the caseand if it is given the emphasis that it is currently giventhe method for calculating deprivation must be seen to be fair.
	I believe that the fairest way is to look at the average household incomes of people in a given local authority area. This formula looks at how many people are claiming various different benefits. That is grossly unfair on places such as Monmouthshire, which has a high number of people working for low wages, often in tourism, as has been mentioned, or in agriculture, where many people might be earning less than the minimum wage. Yet under the local government funding formula, they are not calculated as being deprived in any way, even though they clearly are. Monmouthshire is not the great affluent place that many people think it is. In fact, the local authority area has two of the most deprived wards in Wales, and when I last checked, the average household income was only just over the average for the whole of Wales. I hope that this is one of the first issues the Secretary of State will tackle.
	I also hope the Secretary of State will look at the planning laws, and that when he does so he will look at the planning authorities. There was a recent article in the Western Mail about the failings of the Brecon Beacons national park and, although I do not think that any politicians were quoted in the piece, in my experience the park has certainly been very slack indeed in replying to letters and it takes an arrogant and high-handed view towards Members who wish to question it about its planning policies.

Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend is making an important point on national parks. Does he agree that one way to help them raise their game might be for them to become a little more democratic by having a proportion of their members directly elected by people living in the national park area?

David Davies: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is an excellent idea, and I hope we might look into itperhaps the Secretary of State will take it up.
	The health service has been mentioned. I realise that the Secretary of State does not have any direct control over the health service, although I rather wish he did as I think he would do a much better job than any of the Welsh Assembly Members who currently have influence in that area. If he talks to the Health Minister in the Welsh Assembly Government, I hope he will take the opportunity to raise the issue of Tarceva. A constituent of mine has terminal lung cancer. If he lived in Scotland, or even in parts of England, he would be eligible to receive the anti-cancer drug Tarceva. I am told that, because of a discount given by Roche, it would be no more expensive to offer that than to offer some of the existing treatments, yet he has been turned down simply because of his postcodesimply because he lives in Wales. Surely the Secretary of State agrees that that is completely unacceptable?
	I hope that the Secretary of State will forgive me, but I will not be present for the wind-ups as I have a long-standing engagement with the Royal British Legion tonight, at which I shall talk about the military covenant. The armed forces are not a devolved matter, but I am sure he will take an interest in them in his role. In particular, I hope he will look at the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers, who are based in the town of Monmouth. A number of people from that fine regiment have been sent to Iraq to help with the rebuilding of that country.
	I know that Members have different views about whether it was a good thing to go into Iraq. Regardless of that, I think we all respect those who have put on a uniform and decided to serve their country in whatever capacity they are asked, and I should add that most of the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers officers are involved in rebuilding work, and they are doing a fine job. What is most outstanding about them is that they are all Territorial Army soldiers; they are not full-time soldiers, but civilians who leave their homes and families for six months to do this. Yet despite that enormous contribution, the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers have been told that they can no longer recruit because of a cut to the TA funding budget across the whole of the United Kingdom. At a time when we have soldiers fighting a war on two frontsin Afghanistan and in Iraqand it appears that more Welsh soldiers might be asked to put their lives on the line in the former Yugoslavia, it is unfair that the Government are reducing funds to the TA. It is also worrying that it is difficult for a constituency Member to raise these matters directly with commanding officers as they are told not to discuss matters directly with Members of Parliamentin order to do that, they have to refer back to the Ministry of Defence and get all sorts of permissions, which can take a long time.

Mark Pritchard: I have just had the privilege of spending some time in Afghanistan, and the armed forces there told me that there is a shortage of engineers in Afghanistan, not only for reconstruction but for dealing with improvised explosive devices. Therefore, I am very concerned to hear that the Government are cutting back on those vital regiments.

David Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention.
	Another group of people who put on the uniform to serve their country are the police. I am glad to say that as far as I am aware there are as yet no plans to devolve Home Office matters to the Welsh Assembly.  [Interruption.] No, not yet, and hopefully not for a very long time.

Lembit �pik: I infer from the hon. Gentleman's comment that he does not want to see more devolution. If he were the Secretary of State, would he increase or decrease the powers of the Assembly?

David Davies: Well, I certainly would not increase them; that is a straight answer.
	There has recently been much discussion of policing in this Chamber. The Flanagan report, which I hope will be implemented, has made many useful and worthwhile proposals that will get rid of some of the paperwork that police officers currently face. We do not have the same problems in Wales as inner-city London has, but we nevertheless have significant problems of disorder and antisocial behaviour, even in some of the market towns.
	One such town is Abergavenny, which is not the sort of place one would expect large-scale disorder. Yet young people have come to me and said that other young people are making it impossible for them to walk the streets of Abergavenny in the evenings, and particularly at weekends. If the Secretary of State is ever passing through, I will be happy to show him the problems there. When I went out with the police in Abergavenny, I saw groups of 50 to 100 youngsters gathering on Cross street, with which I think the Secretary of State will be familiar, and intimidating passers-by, drinking cans of lagereven though most of them were under agesmoking and swearing. It was intimidating for elderly passers-by who wanted to enjoy a night out in Abergavenny and perhaps go to the local theatre.
	Under current legislation, it is difficult for the police to deal with such behaviour. Even when people are breaking the law, the police are not necessarily able to arrest, stop and search or even process them. Often, all they can do is ask them to move onif the right local authority orders are in placeor confiscate alcohol, or take people home if they are clearly inebriated. That needs to change. Some of the Flanagan report proposals will help the police. Certainly where they have grounds for stopping and searching, instead of having to fill out long forms I hope that they will be able to use video camera evidence or to radio through details to the control centre, rather than having to go through the stop-and-search forms. As the Secretary of State might know, I serve as a special constable, and I have done quite a lot of stop and searches.
	The report says that it takes seven or eight minutes to fill in the forms, but my experience is that it takes much longer than that, because the person being stopped and searched often does not want to co-operate with the police. Outside WalesI am thinking of Londonpeople who are stopped often do not speak English, and although that is not their fault, it adds to the time it takes. Simple things such as inclement weather can also have an effect. When two police officers want to stop and search three people, it can take upwards of an hour simply to go through the forms and do the searchthat is much longer than stated in the report. Anything that can be done to reduce that time will be welcome, although I appreciate what is contained in the report.
	The report does not address two things. First, the Government announced that they would put in place an order to allow the police randomly to stop and search in areas where there is a threat of violence. Happily, we do not see such threats on a regular basis in Wales, but we can do, particularly at football matches. I am not clear how such a provision is any different from the section 60 powers that police already have.
	Secondly, when the police stop someone for a minor offence but are not going to make an arrest, instead dealing with them either by process or words of guidance, they will find out who a person is and quite often establish that he or she has a recent criminal record for a violent offence or for carrying drugs or knivesthey will be warned about that through their radiosyet that in itself will not be grounds to carry out a search. The police are often stopping known drug dealers and people who have recently used a firearm or a knife but are unable to carry out a search even when that person is breaking the law. With all due respect, I hope the Secretary of State will use whatever influence he has to see whether that law can be changed.
	The Secretary of State will be aware that the Gwent area has a major problem with a lack of court facilities. Newport has been promised a new courtroom for years, but it has not been delivered yet, and as a result additional pressure has been put on the courtroom in Abergavenny and, I imagine, on courtrooms in his area. People are not getting accessible justice. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) has mentioned that he has encountered a similar problem in his area, too. I hope that the Secretary of State will use whatever influence he has to ensure that promises about new courtrooms with modern, up-to-date facilities are implemented.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman is right. This is not a devolved responsibility, and I echo his comments because the fact that the promised courtrooms have not been constructed hinders the application of justice in Wales.

David Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Following on from that, we must consider what happens to people who are going into the justice system and into prison. I do not believe that the figures bandied around are particularly accurate. The average figure for keeping someone in prison is much lower than people realise, because the figures generally used take into account the high cost of category A prisons. Nobody should put that into the cost considerations because, as far as I am aware, nobodynot even Liberal Democratsthinks that people in category A prisons should be out and about on the loose. The actual cost of putting someone in prison is probably about 25,000 to 30,000 a year. One must remember that the vast majority of those entering the system are already on full benefitsthey are rarely those working in nine-to-five jobs and paying taxesso whether we like it or not, the net cost to the taxpayer is considerably less.
	The Government should remember their own 2000 figure that crime costs 60 billion a year, yet we spend only 2 billion imprisoning people. Again on their figuresthose of the Carter report in 2003half that 60 billion cost is down to 100,000 people, of whom only 15,000 are in prison at any given time. Based on the Government's own figures, if the prison population were to be doubled, the extra cost to the taxpayer would be about 2 billion and the saving would be about 30 billion.
	Clearly, I would not want people to be thrown into a Dickensian hell-holeif any exists in the Prison Service; I have not seen anybut I would like more schemes of the sort that are used in Usk prison, in my constituency, that enable people to obtain vocational skills, which they can use when they leave prison. It is simply not possible to provide such skills in the space of a few months, because often the first thing that needs to be done is to address anger management problems, or alcohol and drug problems. People can then be taken into some form of educational process; it is not something that can be done in a matter of weeks or months, because it takes a year or two. I want a humane prison system that keeps people in for longer but treats them in a humane fashion and sends them out with the ability to live a law-abiding life.

Mark Pritchard: Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as providing humane conditions for prisoners, we need reasonable working conditions for the hard-working, dedicated and loyal prison staff? Because of the prison overcrowding crisis, there is an epidemic of assaults on prison staff.

David Davies: I agree, and I shall talk about that issue at greater length on another occasion.
	The Secretary of State for Wales has a huge task ahead of him. I do not doubt his commitment to Wales, but I do doubt the commitment of his Government to change the policies that need changing in order to deliver on that commitment. I must remind him that if he is unable to make improvements, many Conservative candidates will be willing to do so after the next general election.

Nick Ainger: I shall begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), although he is not in his place at the moment, on an excellent speech. I add my words to those of many Members on both sides of the House about the service that he has given to Wales and Northern Ireland, and to the people of the United Kingdom when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. He clearly has not stopped working or thinking, and still has the same dynamism as he had in office.
	I also welcome the new Secretary of State. He and I have worked together on several occasions in the past, and I know that everyone recognises his abilities. Everyone in the House has enormous respect for all the work that he has done in the past, and I look forward to working with him in the future.
	The last time I spoke in a Welsh Affairs debate was from the Back Benches before the 1997 election. It is true to say that Wales has been transformed, and nowhere more so than my own constituency. West Wales had a reputation throughout the 1980s and through most of the 1990s as an economic blackspot. At times, it had some of the worst unemployment in the whole of the United Kingdom. Our services were not good and we were considered a peripheral area with poor communications. We also saw the erosion of the main pillars of our economy, because international changes were affecting us. For example, changes in agriculture saw more people leaving the industry as mechanisation was introduced. There was a squeeze in particular sectors, such as new potatoes, which faced competition from imports from Morocco and Egypt. The defence closure programme in the 1990s saw the then Conservative Government close several bases or radically reducing the number of staff. The energy industry also went through a period of severe contraction, which saw the closure of refineries, power stations and so on.
	The last 10 years have seen a dramatic transformation. Instead of being at the bottom of the league in terms of employment, we are now close to the top. We have had a 65 per cent. reduction in unemployment and the investment in infrastructureroads, new, refurbished and extended schools, and new and refurbished hospitalshas led to a dramatic change in public services in west Wales.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that while average unemployment in the UK is 5.2 per cent., it is 5.4 per cent. in Wales. In west Wales and the valleys, it is 5.8 per cent. I know that those are not big differences, but they do show that Wales is slightly behind the UK average.

Nick Ainger: I refer specifically to my own constituency, where the fall in unemploymentaccording to the latest Library figures and the claimant count figuresmakes us 11th out of 646 constituencies. We have seen tremendous improvement on unemployment and employment, and one reason has been the clear success in my constituency of objective 1 fundingnow convergence funding. The county council, the Welsh Assembly Government and the private sector have worked well together on some significant investments. Not least of those is the Bluestone project, which I know my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath has visited and which has the potential to create 600 new jobs when it opens this summer.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Neath mentioned renewable energy. The technium in Pembroke Dock was created specifically to bring together the private sector and universities in Wales to develop renewable and alternative energy, develop new products, improve existing technologies and spin out companies into larger premises. I was at the technium last week, where Welsh energy sector training, or WESTwhich brings together the private sector, universities such as Swansea university, Bangor university, the university of Glamorgan and the Welsh school of architecturehighlighted specific areas in which it thinks the private sector can become actively involved. WEST is also getting involved, rightly, in encouraging the private sector to expand training for technicians in installing renewable technology and so on, because we in Wales must address the skills gap. It is important to have technologistsnot just graduates but people who have the hands-on skills required to develop a modern economy, particularly in renewable energy. We are trying to encourage people to install renewable energy in their homes, so it is important that we have qualified technologists to do so.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) said that Wales was becoming a capital for renewable energy development. In my constituency, apart from technium, a UK aerospace company in Pembroke Dock is building wind turbines on a smaller scale for domestic and small commercial use. The Bluestone project will be heated and powered by a miscanthus-fired boiler system which will heat the water world and provide 1.5 MW of power. It will be the biggest renewable-fired system in Wales, and will be considered as a pilot for other large projects.
	We as a Government need to incentivise people to change their habits and make the investment needed in alternative energy and microgeneration. I am thinking of the experience in Germany in particular, where they have a feed-in tariff, and of the take-up there of photovoltaic energy, for example. Much of Germany's PV technology is manufactured in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas); I have visited the Sharp factory. Sharp management say that Germany is their biggest market, because of the feed-in tariff. We as a Government must address that issue, so that we can incentivise people.

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about feed-in tariffs, but he should know that the Government have rejected them during the Energy Bill's passage through Parliament.

Nick Ainger: Absolutely, and I agree that they ought seriously to reconsider. Feed-in tariffs are a way to incentivise individuals to invest in renewables and give a faster return on investment.

Lembit �pik: On that point, I tend to agree that rejecting feed-in tariffs was a mistake by the Government, but it is a reparable mistake, and I suspect that it can be repaired through lobbying. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in order to make feed-in tariffs effective, we need smart meters? I submitted to the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform a strong rationale for introducing smart meters. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should be lobbying for them in Wales and throughout the UK?

Nick Ainger: I do not argue with the hon. Gentleman on that point. Let me turn to energy prices and their impact on my constituency, and the wider issue of fuel poverty. In 2004, Brent crude cost $30 a barrel, but today it costs just under $100 a barrel. That has affected more than just our industry. Given that the price of oil has more than doubled, it is remarkable how resilient our economy has been, but the effect on our domestic energy market has been quite dramatic. Production costs for crude oil have not changed much, so there has been a significant increase in oil companies' profits. The latest figures show that profits for Shell were $27.5 billion, for BP $16.2 billion, for Exxon Mobil $40 billion, and for Chevron $4.8 billion in the last quarter of 2007.
	Energy suppliers' profits have increased significantly, too. British Gas's profits are up 40 per cent. at 1.9 billion, and National Power's profits are up 41 per cent. at 500 million. That high level of profitability has enabled huge investment in Pembrokeshire. Probably more than 1 billion has been invested in the two liquefied natural gas terminals in the constituency of the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb), and there has been construction of a 120-mile high-pressure gas pipeline. That has undoubtedly brought local benefits. However, the real impact is on domestic bills. The average annual cost of gas has risen from 370 to 569a 54 per cent. increase. Electricity prices are up 38 per cent. Heating oil prices more than doubled over the period in question, too. The effect has been an increase in fuel poverty.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) last night hosted a meeting with National Energy Action Cymru, which gave us some interesting information. There is no question but that the winter fuel allowance has been a huge success in addressing and reducing fuel poverty, but given the high price risesit is unlikely that there will be significant fallsthe number of people in fuel poverty in Wales is likely to increase substantially. It increased between 2004 and 2006 by over 100,000, and for every 10 per cent. rise in energy costs, 48,000 more people in Wales go into fuel poverty.
	I agree with suggestions that the first thing that we should do is ensure that energy suppliers do not apply a surcharge to those who have prepayment meters. On average, people who use a prepayment meter pay 127 more than those who pay by direct debit, although they are among the poorest people. We should make sure that all the energy suppliers end that surchargethat penalty on being poor in Wales and on using a prepayment meter. One supplier has already done so.
	We should consider extending the winter fuel payment to those who are on benefitswho are in receipt of jobseeker's allowance or some sort of disability payment but are below the age of 60. Not many people know about the social tariff, but it enables people to get 20 per cent. off their energy billthat is provided by the energy supplierand free insulation on their property if they can show that they are vulnerable and in fuel poverty. What is preventing that from being rolled out to far more people is the reluctance to exchange information between the Department for Work and Pensions, local authorities and the energy suppliers. That must be addressed.
	The excess profits being made by the oil industry and the energy suppliers could fund a national energy efficiency agency. If the income of the oil industry and the energy suppliers were top-sliced, that could be dedicated to making the existing housing stock fuel efficient, thereby tackling fuel poverty and climate change and developing fuel poverty payments.
	One of the issues that concerns me greatly is that people, in many cases retired, who live in rural parts of Wales and are not connected to the gas supply are totally dependent on oil-fired central heating. As I said, the price of heating oil in the past four years has gone from 20p a litre to 42p a litre, or even higher. We have not seen a change in the winter fuel allowance. I believe that the oil industry has a moral duty to start a social tariff, in the same way as have the other energy suppliers, in order to address that problem.

Mark Pritchard: It is a great privilege to speak in my inaugural St. David's day debate. As a recent member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, it is a great privilege to have heard some of the speeches today. I have already learned a great deal. It could be asked why an English Member of Parliament is involved in a Welsh affairs debate. I have given part of the reason, by saying that I am a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee. I also spent five years of my childhood growing up in Wales, in the Afan valley in the constituency of Aberavon. It is a great privilege to serve on the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis).
	That was a wonderful place to grow up, many times playing soccer by the River Afan and having to chase the ball down the river at high speed. Eventually it would turn up 10 miles down the road in Neath. There are other great memories, such as those of camping in the summer months in the hills round about. Wales is a fabulous place. It is a wonder to go there every year for my summer holidays, and in the recent recess I spent three days in Aberdovey. I hope that the purchase of the Penhelig Arms hotel in Aberdovey by Brains Brewery will not change the quality of the output. Tourism is vital for the Welsh economy. We have heard today how manufacturing is decreasing in Wales, so a reliance on tourism and the softer service industries is very evident.

Ian Lucas: Manufacturing is alive, well and prospering in Wrexham, my constituency, and throughout north-east Wales.

Mark Pritchard: I am grateful for that intervention. I do not want to be partisan in this debate because I am a fan of Wales. I have just expressed that. However, we should be realistic. The global pressures recognised even by the hon. Gentleman's Prime Minister have meant that a million manufacturing jobs throughout the United Kingdom have been lost since 1997. To identify that is to put ourselves in a position to create, as a nation, a new employment strategy. It is a matter not of being critical, but of critical appreciation.
	Manufacturing in Wales, as no doubt in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, is very much linked to the aerospace industry, and that is why I hope that the Airbus project, which is experiencing many delays at the moment, will move forward. It is critical not only for the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but for the west midlands and Shropshire, where many small and medium-sized businesses rely heavily on Airbus and other manufacturing industries supplying the airline industry.

Lembit �pik: I lend my support to the hon. Gentleman's observation about the importance of tourism for Wales. Montgomeryshire is highly dependent on caravanning and on visitors to tourist attractions such as Lake Vyrnwy and walking in the mountains. If the hon. Gentleman is implying that we should be a bit more forceful in advertising Wales as a destination within the UK for holidays, I certainly agree with that sentiment.

Mark Pritchard: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. If someone has a fortnight's holiday, they should first stop in Shropshire, whose tourism campaign I support, and then spend the second week in Wales. That is a perfectly reasonable compromise. I have been to Lake Vyrnwy. It is a great bird-watching location that is funded by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and it has a hotel that is undergoing major refurbishment as we speak.

Anne Main: I concur with the comments of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). As I have said, I was born and brought up in Wales and lived around the Bristol area for quite some time. I used to be somewhat depressed when I heard people talk about going to see Roman remains to find that they were heading up the M4 to Bath instead of going over the bridge to Caerleon, which has one of the most fantastic sets of Roman remains and the most perfect amphitheatre in Europe, I believe. It is absolutely right that we have so many jewels in Wales to champion.

Mark Pritchard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some say that the Romans did not get past the western borders of Shropshire, but they did venture further, and there are some excellent Roman remains in parts of Wales. However, to return to my earlier point, I suggest that visitors stop in Wroxeter in Shropshire in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and then move on to the wonderful Roman sites in Wales. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) rightly said that the Government should be doing more to promote Wales as not only a sporting venue but a tourism venue as well.
	We have even seen an example of Welsh culture subsiding in the Chamber today, and I am very sad about that. In my day in Wales, the men used to wear leeks, not daffodils, but I see no one in the Chamber who is wearing a leek todayapart from my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West, who some may have spotted is wearing a wonderful leek tie. Of course, leeks and politicians do not usually gel well; they are not something that politicians like. But on the serious point, it would be nice to see some leeks next time round, and I will participate in that, along with the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee.  [Interruption.] I have just said that I am willing to do so; I did not wear my own leek today because I did not want to embarrass Members.
	There is no doubt a correlation between the standard of public services in health in Wales and those in Shropshire, Herefordshire and Cheshire. That is why I welcome the cross-border inquiry of the Welsh Affairs Committee. The people of Wales, who are paying more taxes than they have ever done before, are entitled to a full NHS, not only in acute services but in primary care services as well. The people of Shropshire should not have their health strategy designed because of Wales's deficits and shortfalls, but should have a health service designed for the special needs of that large county. That is why I have concerns that unless the people of Shropshire and north Wales have been consulted on the agreement between the west midlands and the Welsh Assembly, there will be great concern on both sides of the border about any movement of services. The Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic and District Hospital NHS Trust and the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust need primarily to serve the populations around them. Yes, of course we want to share health services with Wales where possible. However, in Shropshire and the west midlands we cannot have a system designed for Wales when the majority of the services are meant to be delivered in England.
	I touched on the issue of education earlier, during an intervention. It disturbs me that 16 schools in Wales are potentially subject to special measures and special interest from the chief inspector of schools for Wales; the number is double that of last year. I do not see that as progress. That is not a criticism of the hard-working, dedicated teaching staff of Wales, who do a wonderful job, but a recognition that teachers are being asked to do more with less. They are more often subject to bullying and harassment in the classroom and the Government need to take action. It is high time that the Government recognised the need to do what the Conservative party wants to do: provide a facility under which teachers accused, perhaps falsely, of bullying pupils are given protection until the case has been proven. It is important that in such circumstances teachers remain anonymous, so that their reputations are not ruined before their very eyes.
	It is also concerning that the gap between the best and worst schools in Wales has increasedby 10 per cent. in the past year. That cannot be progress. Both Wales Office Ministers are decent men and I am not criticising them, but it is important to recognise the challenges, grapple with them and work closely with the Education Minister in Wales.
	Defence, of course, is a key issue; I see the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) in his place. I am glad that the nation of Wales has for many hundreds of years contributed in a wonderful and heroic way to the work, activities and commitments of Her Majesty's armed forces. It continues to do so today. Last year I was in Iraq, and I was in Afghanistan only a few weeks ago. Wherever I go to meet the armed forces, I find the fine tradition of Welsh men and women playing their full part, and long may that continue. I pay tribute to them all.
	The Governments in London and Wales have a real responsibility to ensure that veterans who leave Her Majesty's armed forces are cared for appropriately. I am privileged that the armed forces mental health charity Combat Stress has a treatment centre in Newport, Shropshirenot Newport, Wales. I have met former Welsh Guards who still suffer post-traumatic stress disorder from the conflict in the Falkland Islands. It is important that the Government do far more to provide mental health services, not only for those serving today but for those who will leave the armed forces in future.
	We have heard today about policing and law and order. We can argue about whether crime is up or down in Wales, but we know from the Police Federation and their own articulation privatelyand sometimes, bravely, publiclythat the police are burdened with paperwork and red tape as never before. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), who has not only political but personal and professional experience, serving gallantly as a special constable. It is in the interests of Wales, of the Government and of every individual victim of crime that the paperwork be reduced so that police officers get back on the beat.
	When the Labour Government were first elected, we heard about zero-tolerance policing. We do not hear that phrase any more; it has gone out of fashion. However, when we get down to the grass roots and basics of violent crime, we see that it starts at a very low level. If people think they can get away with low-level antisocial behaviourso-called petty crime, noise nuisance, or whatever it may bethey graduate up to other crimes, and then graduate up again. The reason why we have a crisis in our prisons is that more and more people are committing crimeit is a bit of a no-brainer.
	Given that the Government have decided, very belatedly, to build new prisonsI welcome that, although it is partly because they are trying to catch up, and it is unfortunately driven by criticism rather than by a prison strategyI hope that we will see an end to early prisoner release. One could say that, in principle, there is a role within a reasonable criminal justice system for early prisoner release, with a normal probation board and Parole Board, and I would not argue with that. Unfortunately, however, many of the early release schemes that the Government have signed up to have been the result of the crisis in the prisons. Because there is no room in the prisons they are forced to release people early, and many of them, according to the Home Office's own statistics, go on to commit crime again. That cannot be a sensible criminal justice policy and it cannot be good for the people of Wales. I know that the Minister, being a reasonable man, will admit that that is the case, so let us have those prison places opened up as soon as possible.
	As I said earlier, prison overcrowding has led to a large increase in assaults on prison staff. They are hard-working, dedicated public servants, and it is completely intolerable and unacceptable that they should have to suffer in this way just because of the Government's short-sightedness on these issues. Then there is the knock-on effect on police cells in Wales. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) will know that over the past year or so there has been a real problem with police cells being full in Wrexham, as well as in other parts of Wales, because there has been nowhere to take prisoners. I hope that the Minister will deal with those points.
	While I am on the subject of Wrexham, which is a wonderful place, the cross-party effort to get the Wrexham-Shropshire-Marylebone direct rail link to London has been successful. That was a real victory, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State and the Minister; I also pay tribute to Transport Ministers. Shropshire now has a direct rail link to London, which is greatit is good for the people of Wales and good for the people of Shropshire. However, within the past few weeks Virgin Trains has announced that it is going to set up another London to Wrexham service via Chester. It is perplexing why Virgin Trains has suddenly shown an interest in having a direct rail link to Wrexham, and I hope that it will not, by design or by default, push out the new service that is coming through Shropshire. I understand competitionI do not have an issue with thatbut there must be an holistic view of what is good for Wales.
	As I am on transport, may I encourage the Secretary of State to have a meeting with Arriva Trains Wales, whose trains pass through Shropshire? There is no doubt that there is greater demand on the Welsh and the English sides of the border. It is a triumph for the Government that more people want to use public transport, but we are now seeing overcrowding on trains like nothing before, and there is sometimes a real health and safety risk. I have been on those trainsthey are absolutely jam-packed, and if there was some sort of incident it would be very serious. I hope that the Minister will give a commitment to the House on that issue.
	Wales has a bright future, but only if the Government invest in the health and education of the fine and upstanding people of Wales and allow them to go about their law-abiding duties without being intervened on by people who want to undermine their way of life.

Don Touhig: Aneurin Bevan stood up in this Chamber on 17 October 1944, in the first ever Welsh day debate, and being a great socialist and internationalist, he declared that there are no Welsh problems, there are only problems. He was right. Speaking of the coal industry, which then employed tens of thousands of people throughout Wales, he said that there was
	no special Welsh solution for the Welsh coal industry which is not the solution for the whole mining industry of Great Britain[ Official Report, 17 October 1944; Vol. 403, c. 2312.]
	and again, he was right. Of course there are differences between Wales and the rest of Great Britain, especially on the rugby field. We showed that at Twickenham and Murrayfield. The fact is that we are simply the best. However, those minor differences pale into insignificance when we look at what we share in common with the rest of the Union.
	In Wales, we face many challenges to improve our economy, educational opportunities, health care and transport, but those are not peculiarly Welsh issues requiring a Welsh-only solution. Only last Friday in this House, we took the historic step of giving Second Reading to a Bill that would secure equal treatment for agency workers. If that Bill gains Royal Assent and becomes law, it will address a scandal that exists throughout Britain. It will benefit the whole of Britain, and Wales as part of Britain.
	It is false and pernicious to try to portray the interests of the Welsh people as different from the interests of English people, the Scots or the Irish. Many of the issues that we face are the same. Let us be proud of our Welsh culture, identity and languageproud, as I was today when the children from Ysgol Gymraeg Cwm Gwyddon in my constituency sang at the St David's day service here in Parliament.
	However, in this second month of the new year, let us beware of the danger confronting us: the danger of entering a political cul-de-sac. The temptation is there to spend endless wasted hours on constitutional debate. The chattering classes, the crachach, who believe that they know best for Wales, swoon at the prospect of more powers for the National Assembly. Many in the media think that more powers for Cardiff is the story of the decadetosh, rubbish. The real people of Wales, the werin, have no time for all of this, and I stand with them.
	Disappointing as it may seem to some, more powers for politicians in Cardiff will not be the main topic of conversation in the Top club in Abercarn tomorrow night, or in any pub, club, church or chapel around Wales where Welshmen and women gather. They will talk about the economy, education, health and training, and it is to training that I want to devote most of my remarks. Before I do, however, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who is no longer in his place, for his excellent contribution to the debate today. I also warmly welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales back to the Wales Office. It was a pleasure and an honour to serve with him when he was last there. I am pleased that his sound judgment, common sense and plain speaking will once again be heard at the Cabinet table.
	The Secretary of State will face many difficult issues in the coming months, but I urge him not to be tempted, when he brings proposals for legislation to this House, to make it different simply for the sake of being different. We should make things better when we pass legislation to benefit Wales, but we should not make it different simply for the sake of it. Every step of the way, we must continue to ask ourselves, Will this measure make life better for the Welsh people? If the answer is a sincere yes, we should forge ahead. If it is no, we should drop it and pursue other avenues that will yield real change for the betterment of the people of Wales.
	I passionately want our Government to succeed for the people of Britain, but I have to say that making things different in Wales in the past has been a barrier and has denied this left-of-centre Government an opportunity to benefit the people of Wales as they have benefited England.

Hywel Williams: Would the right hon. Gentleman describe free prescriptions as a barrier to radical policies in Wales? They were introduced by the Welsh Assembly Government.

Don Touhig: They were introduced by the Labour party in Wales, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
	We in Wales will face a danger in the coming year from an unhealthy dynamic in Welsh politics. It is a dynamic that is already leading us into a blind alley, which goes by the grand title of the constitutional convention. I am told that the Welsh Assembly is to set aside 500,000 for this self-indulgent, wasteful exercise in navel gazing. That pointless convention is supposed to test the waters to determine whether we should hold a referendum on more powers for Cardiff and when it can be won. I wonder whether the Assembly will make the same amount of public money available to those who want a referendum at a time when the Welsh people will say no to more powers in Cardiff. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will enlighten us in his winding-up speech.
	I can save the Assembly that 500,000; I can help them test the waters. I have a cunning plan. I will take the authors of the idea on a walk down Blackwood high streetor any high street in Walesand ask people whether they believe that it is worth spending 500,000 on the convention. People will be amazed that we can find that money when there are far more pressing needs.
	Wales spends less per head on educating our children than England spends. People will think that we should close that gap. We spend far less than England on further education, and people will think that we should close that gap. Waiting lists for hospital admissions in Wales are longer than those in England. People will think that we should close that gap, too. On top of that, incomes in Wales are lower than elsewhere in Britain and much of Europe. People will certainly think that we should close that gap.
	West Wales and the valleys, thanks to the Labour Government, obtained European objective 1 moneys because our income levels were lower than those in the rest of Britain and Europe. However, after six years of that funding, we must ask whether our income levels are any better now. The answer is that they have changed little, and continue to lag behind the rest of the United Kingdom.
	So far, to a great extent, objective 1 has been a lost opportunity. The Irish used objective 1 money to upskill their work force and have gone on to become the tiger economy of Europe. We should follow their lead, but we do not. A look through the Welsh European Funding Office list of the largest objective 1 projects shows that the money has been used for agricultural food processing, tourism promotion, and a Royal Society for the Protection of Birds scheme called, Aren't Welsh Birds Brilliant! I have no doubt that those are worthy causes, and I do not want to denigrate them, but are we seriously saying that they are priorities for investing the European money that we have won for Wales?
	Furthermore, the administration of objective 1 has been a bureaucratic nightmare, bound up in red tape. Only yesterday, the Welsh Local Government Association expressed frustration that, after 15 months of the new European structural fund programme, so little progress has been made.

Elfyn Llwyd: Who has been in charge of the programme for the past six years?

Don Touhig: The hon. Gentleman is aware of my views on those matters. Those responsible in the Assembly have taken their eye off the ball. Objective 1, and the convergence fund that has now replaced it, should be about increasing income levels and raising the standard of living. To do that, it should be used for upskilling and training above all else.
	Cicero said:
	The good of the people is the chief law.
	I believe in that. For me, politics should be about the common good, not responding to greed, selfishness and narrow personal interests. This great Labour party stands for social justice, fairness and equality of opportunity. In the past 10 years, the Government have brought great achievements to fruition. There are more people in work, a record amount of new jobs has been created, and full employment is a near reality. Our economy is strong, our people are more prosperous, and investment in health and education is at record levels. We have a solid base on which to build.
	However, our economic future will be secure only if we invest in training and upskilling our people. We need to give the people of Wales the skills that they do not yet have in order to create the jobs that we do not yet have. Wales in the 21st century can become the dragon economy of Europe. When Labour came to power, at the start of the journey to reform Britain more than a decade ago, Tony Blair declared that his priority was education, education, education. He was right, but now we must take the next step. Now our priority should be training, training, training. Everyone will have to go back to school to improve their skills.
	When my father went underground at the age of 14, it was the muscles in his arms that he needed to develop. My twin granddaughters, now aged 14, must develop the muscles between their ears if they want to get the right knowledge and skills to have a future.
	The great challenges that we face in the coming years are not Welsh but global. We are part of a world in which powerful new economies such as China and India will challenge and overtake Europe and the United States. China enrolled 15 million students in tertiary education in 2004, but there the average industrial wage is but 60p an hour. Walesand, for that matter, Britaincannot compete if we remain a low-skill, low-wage economy. The only way we will compete is by retraining and upskilling. We have to keep ahead with new and innovative ideas, which we can fully exploit only if we have the skills to do so.
	The challenge to Wales will be all the greater because we are on the edge of Europe geographically, but we can be at the heart of Europe economically. There are some in other parties in the House who will happily mislead the people by saying that Labour is interested only in middle England. When I first heard that I wondered how the hopes and aspirations of people in middle England were different from those of people in Islwyn, for example, so I did some research. I did not find much difference. In fact, I discovered that people in middle England want a job and a decent education for their children. The people of Islwyn want that as well. People in middle England want a first-class health service free at the point of need. People in Islwyn want that, too. In middle England, people want good public services to take care of them and a decent pension to live on in old age. Funnily enough, I found that people in Islwyn want exactly the same thing.

Hywel Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Don Touhig: I will not, because I am short of time, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand.
	Those who claim that we in Wales are so different from those in England that our future must be as an independent country in Europe often point to Ireland, Belgium, and Holland, but they are misguided. They fail to remind us that those independent countries are now part of a greater Europe, sharing decision making and law making, and common goals and objectives. Countries such as Ireland, Belgium and Holland want to be part of an ever-growing Union; they do not want to secede from one. There is no logic in having Wales leave the United Kingdom, one of the big players on the European stage, to stand alone as a minor player with very little voice and even less bargaining power. That would be tantamount to the emasculation of Wales.
	The separatists would have Wales end its long marriage with England only to enter a polygamous marriage with half of Europe in a Union that would include England. Are they really serious? If this were an Alan Bennett play or a Brian Rix farce, the men in white coats would be coming on stage now. I am proud to be Welsh, but separatism is nonsense. I want a Wales that is at the heart of Britain and a Britain that is at the heart of Europe.
	Wales can and should have the ambition to be an economic powerhouse within the Union of Great Britain. However, to achieve that ambition we must face up to the challenge of creating a work force who are trained and equipped with all the skills necessary to compete on the global stage. No one who leaves education today, in Wales or anywhere else in Britain, can expect to have a job for life. Everyone will have to retrain and reskill throughout their working lives. No one should be left at home, existing on benefits, if they can work, retrain and upskill to get a job.
	The bread and butter issues facing us in Wales and throughout Britain do not involve constitutional tinkering. The bread and butter issues are the economy, jobs, education, training, health, pensions and transport. Those are the issues that concern the people who send us to Westminster. Skills are the key to those issues. If we want the money to invest in education, training and so on, we must first get the jobs. To get the jobs, we have to invest in upskilling our people. Then they will get the jobs to pay the taxes and we will be able to invest in all the good public services that we want in our country. A highly skilled, highly paid work force will close the income gap and objective 1 will then be a resounding success.
	The challenge facing the Government, as they work in partnership with our friends and colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales, is to ensure that every penny of objective 1 money and transitional funding currently left unspent is dedicated entirely to upskilling our people and providing them with new skills and new training. That is the challenge that we face. My plea to those on the Treasury Bench is simply this: do not let us down.

Elfyn Llwyd: I should like to add my voice to those of hon. Members who have welcomed the re-appointment of the Secretary of State. I congratulate him, and I am sure that he will do very well in the post. May I also unreservedly apologise to him for the slur cast by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), who implied that the Secretary of State and I were converging politically? That will undoubtedly be damaging to him, but I hope that it causes him less anxiety than it might just cause me. Apart from the skilling bit, I disagreed with everything the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) said. He was meticulous, however, in the way he put his speech over. I noted much of what was said by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger), and I thought that he made an interesting contribution.
	I am not going to talk Wales down. That has already been done by the right hon. Member for Islwyn. There are problems in Wales, but I am not saying that all is bad. There is less unemployment than there was, by a long chalk. The trouble is, however, that wages are low. We need to upgrade and upskill, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, in order to succeed. Emphasis will no doubt be placed on that in the coming months and years. I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's view that the objective 1 money has been a complete waste, but it has not been put to good use. It could have been used better.

Don Touhig: I was not suggesting for one moment that it was a complete waste. I said I was concerned that it had not been used, as it could have been, to give people the skills they need in order to close the income gap that concerns us all.

Elfyn Llwyd: In that case, I agree fully with the right hon. Gentleman and I apologise for misinterpreting what he said.
	We also have the rather bizarre problem of the Department for Work and Pensions job cuts on the horizon. There are now 32 towns in Wales that no longer have a DWP office. A large number of jobs have already gone, and 28 of the 33 proposed closures are in the objective 1 area. This is part of the debate that we have just had on upskilling and our gross domestic product. These are big problems. The right hon. Gentleman asked what was different about Wales. This is different: no matter how many times we shout about the problems caused by job cuts in objective 1 areas, nobody takes a blind bit of notice and the cuts go ahead. That is one difference.
	The job cuts at HMRC are expected to result in the closure of a further 14 offices, with 750 job losses in Wales, 550 of which will be in the objective 1 area. How can we possibly say that we want to raise the GDP or the gross value added in the objective 1 area if this is happening? Those are good, steady jobseven if they are not hugely well paidyet they are disappearing. Hundreds of them are going, including 35 in Porthmadog and 50 in Bangor. Some of them will undoubtedly involve voluntary redundancy, but a great deal of damage will none the less be done to the economy in various parts of the objective 1 area of Wales. If we look at the map, we see that the job cuts come within the arc of the objective 1 area. I am extremely disappointed that that is so.
	Jeff Evans of the Public and Commercial Services Union in Wales has said:
	Wages in Wales are, on average, 13 per cent. lower than the British average. Any reliance on market forces to determine regional public sector pay rates would disadvantage Welsh workers.

Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is much cross-party opposition to the closure of DWP offices in western Wales. Another possible threat to jobs is likely to be caused by the merger of national health service trusts in north Wales. I am afraid that that proposal is backed by the leader of Plaid Cymru in Wales, who believes that they positively should merge. The merger would result in a drift of jobs eastwards from north-west Wales from the trust that covers the hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine. Does he agree that we need to be consistent on this issue, and that we need to fight at all levels to keep highly paid, highly skilled jobs in north-west Wales and in the objective 1 area?

Elfyn Llwyd: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman and make no bones about that, but I am addressing another subject. I hope he agrees with what I am saying about that, as I agree with him on this. Our priority for that part of Wales is to ensure that the economy is as buoyant as it possibly can be and the main ingredient clearly must be well-paid jobs.
	I met the Secretary of State to discuss these matters on 6 February; in fairness, he pledged that he would take them up with ministerial colleagues. I have no doubt that he will do so, but when the Under-Secretary winds up the debate, perhaps he will tell us whether there is any good news yet. I certainly know the right hon. Gentleman well enough to know that if he says he will discuss the matter, he will.
	Today, however, we hear that Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency staff in Swansea have discovered that they are grossly underpaid in comparison with their colleagues in England. That, I am afraid, is another reason why Wales is different. DVLA workers in Swansea are paid 15,725 in comparison with 18,050 with workers over the bordernot in London, but just over the border. The total saving to the Exchequer from that is 17 millionmoney saved by underpaying hard workers down in Swansea. As Sian Wiblin of the Public and Commercial Services Union said:
	The situation of the DVLA staff highlights the madness of civil service pay arrangements which fail to provide adequate rewards to thousands of hard-working public servants.
	I strongly believe that that must be reversed. We must not allow regional pay to dominate; if it does, we shall never get anything real out of objective 1. If we are not very careful, we will unfortunately become a sweat shop economy. I am sure that no one in the House or outside it would like that.
	Let me cite the editorial comment in today's edition of the  Western Mail:
	Paying less in Objective One areas would also defy the logic of that EU designation.
	It goes on to say that the objective 1 money is meant
	to kick start economic growth. But GDP levels will never go up if regional pay becomes the norm. On a related matter, the plans to cut public sector jobsat HMRC and the Department for Work and Pensions in Objective One areas suggest one arm of the Government isn't aware what another is doing. What is the point of trying to bring jobs to West Wales and the Valleys through one government scheme and taking them away with another?
	Clearly, that is nonsense, so I hope that at some point Ministers will make strong representations to their colleagues because, as the  Western Mail says, this is a step backwards at a time when Wales is striving to become a dynamic modern economy. As the paper concludes:
	It's an idea that should be stopped in its tracks.
	There are many dynamic aspects of Wales today. We have already talked about the university sector. I am playing a small part in bringing industry into proper negotiation and partnership with Bangor university, and I am proud that other universities in Wales are doing the same. We have referred to the great honour bestowed on Cardiff for its two Nobel prize winners. There is no doubt that we are doing well and I am not talking the country down, but there are problems. They are man-made and they can be dealt with. If we can use objective 1 money to create a better economy, we can ensure that that happens without doing anything to damage the economy. Otherwise, we are all wasting our time.
	I want to mention the issue of compensation for foot and mouth disease. Reference was made earlier to the somewhat cynical way in which mention of compensation for Wales was included in the first draft of a speech, but disappeared the following week when it became clear that no election was going to be called. Last week, the Minister Elin Jones announced an 8.8 million compensation package for sheep farmers in respect of the outbreak of foot and mouth in England last year. That is welcome, although Brynle Williams, representing the Conservatives in the Assembly, said that it somehow underpaid the farmers, selling them short. If he paused for thought, even he might realise that 12.5 million paid in England and 8.8 million paid in Wales is not too bad a comparative figure, especially when it comes from a budget rather than from the Treasury. Of course, we all know that the Government were directly responsible for the outbreak in the first place. Common sense dictates that the Government should have bailed Wales out, but in any event the money was found, and although I do not suggest it is a silver bullet that will immediately deal with all the problems, it will go some way towards dealing with them.

Roger Williams: As I said in my speech, the outbreak can be attributed directly to the Government because they were the licensing authority of the establishment that caused it. Has the Assembly made representations to the Treasury, and should not representations be made from here as well?

Elfyn Llwyd: I have spoken to the Secretary of State about the matter, and I know that the Minister has been to see him about it. It has been raised on a cross-party basis. This is another instance of Wales being slightly different: we were not bailed out when we should have been, although the Treasury bailed out our counterparts in England.
	Finally, let me deal with the thorny issue of post office closures in Wales. A huge number of post offices have disappeared over the past couple of years, and it would be awful if we lost any more. As we know, post offices are a focal point for communities. I live in a village that contains one post office, which is also the village shop. The village is 5 miles from the nearest town, and although I have a car and can drive, other people are unable to make the journey. I believe passionately that we should halt the closure process.
	According to the New Economics Foundation, on average a post office contributes 310,000 to the local economy each yearalthough obviously that does not apply to the one in my villageand 120,000 is spent directly on local goods and services. Each post office saves small businesses in its vicinity about 270,000. In deprived urban areas, 61 per cent. of customers use their post offices to gain access to free community services, while 69 per cent. do so in rural areas. About 75 per cent. of post offices have a shop or other business attached to them, and are the only places where local people can withdraw cash.
	In March 2001 there were 1,399 post offices operating in Wales. By March 2007 there were only 1,146, 18 per cent. having disappeared. Of those closures, 127 were part of the urban reinvention programme: urban sub-postmasters were paid compensation for closing their businesses in a so-called rationalisation of the post office structure in urban areas.

Albert Owen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Elfyn Llwyd: I have little time, but I will give way briefly.

Albert Owen: As the hon. Gentleman will know, I am a co-sponsorwith my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig)of early-day motion 1054, which calls for a halt to the closure programme and also for the generation of new business. Could we not jointly lobby local authorities about payment of council tax through the post office network?

Elfyn Llwyd: I entirely agree. I also think that, as some council offices are having to close, a small amount could be paid to a post office to function as a one-stop shop providing information. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will work as vigorously as we can on a cross-party basis.
	We should ask whether the Government can reverse the policy on television and road fund licences, benefit payments and so forth. As we know, the Post Office card account may or may not still be with us in years to come. There are problems ahead, and although they are avoidable, they are likely to hit Wales far harder than other parts of the United Kingdom because of the nature of the country. It contains some deprived urban areas but also semi-rural valleys, and large parts of it are rural. I hope that the Government will think again. I know that all Members, including Ministers, will be concerned about what is happening in their localities. On 28 January last month, the Secretary of State himself said in  The D aily T elegraph :
	Where there are large numbers of people who rely on the Post Office, or where transport to other offices is difficult, the Post Office need to think carefully about the impact of their plans...they are important to communities and to those who use them, especially older people and those who don't own a car.
	Finally, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), who apparently succeeded in rescuing one of his post offices, said:
	We presented a dossier...this is a victory for common sense.
	That implies that there is not much sense in the Government policy. There was not much sense in voting for it in the first place and then complaining, either. These issues will be with us for months to come and there is a cross-party consensus on some of them.
	I am not whingeing here today; there are a lot of good things about Wales. There is a great deal of inward investment, we have fantastic universities, we have innovative young people, and we are set for clean energy. We have several things on the horizon but they could be better. I am afraid that some of the problems are man-made, and made by this place. They must be reversed.

Ian Lucas: May I take the opportunity, like many others today, to pay tribute to the work of the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who worked assiduously for Wales? We have had the odd policy disagreement from time to time, but he has always worked with patience and good humour and he is one of the best political campaigners I have ever come across. Wales is fortunate indeed in having my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) as his successor. His political skills are respected in all parts of the House. He also agrees with me that what matters most to the people we are sent here to represent are the services that Government help to provide to those constituents. For that reason, I intend to concentrate on the delivery of public services in one form or another today.
	If there is a big political issue in Wrexham, my constituents get in touch with me. I hear about it from them pretty quickly and their strength of feeling is apparent. I recall that one such issue was the Government's ill-fated proposal for a single police force for Wales, a policy that was strongly opposed by Labour MPs in north Wales who, I believe, had a major effect upon the eventual decision.
	Another such issue is the delivery of specialist services in our NHS. Before I came to this place, I worked as a non-executive director at the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic and district hospital at Gobowen in Shropshire, which has been referred to today. Within that hospital is the Midlands and North Wales centre for spinal injuries, headed by my very good friend Mr. Wagih El Masry, a consultant who, with his colleagues, achieves miraculous recoveries for many people who suffer catastrophic injuries in accidents. His skills have been developed over decades and are shared in only eight other centres in the UK. There is no comparable centre in north Wales. I have constituents who are walking today only because of the skill of the staff there.
	We all value medical services that are close to our homes but we understand that specialist skills can be developed only in specialist centres. Increasingly, the requirements of Royal Colleges dictate that those skills be delivered only in specialist centres. My constituents understand this and no constituent has contacted me to ask that those services should be delivered only in Wrexham. On the other hand, I have been contacted by constituents who are concerned that specialist services may be withdrawn from them because those services are based in England. I have heard from Wrexham residents who were treated at Broadgreen in Liverpool for heart surgery

Hywel Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman identify anybody, anywhere who has said that services in Shropshire should be moved to Wrexham?

Ian Lucas: I understand why a separatist party would require services that are currently delivered from England to Wales to be delivered only in Wales. The fallacy of the Plaid Cymru position is that it pretends that services currently delivered by specialist centres in England would continue to be delivered in an independent Wales. I have heard from Wrexham residents who have been treated at Broadgreen in Liverpool for heart surgery, at Christie hospital in Manchester for cancer, at Alder Hey in Liverpool for children's services or at Walton for neurosurgery. They are concerned that patients may be denied access to those centres of excellence simply because those centres are in England. I have been comforted by assurances given by the Minister for Health and Social Services in the Welsh Assembly Government, but we must assert the value of a national health service delivered across the UK.

David Jones: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Minister for Health and Social Services in the Welsh Assembly Government. Did that Minister not preside over the proposal to require neurosurgery patients in north Wales to travel to Cardiff or Swansea for treatment and elective surgery, rather than to the Walton centre, which is currently the case? Is it not a Labour Minister who introduced that policy?

Ian Lucas: The Minister denies that she ever said that. Intervention by Labour Assembly Members and Members of Parliament in north Wales has clarified the position. Later, I will discuss the Conservative position, which will be interesting for my constituents to learn.
	I have also heard concerns about the role of Health Commission Wales, which is responsible for determining specialist services and access to specialist services. Those concerns have also been recognised by the Welsh Assembly Government, who are conducting an inquiry into that body. As the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) said yesterday at Welsh questions, the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign has expressed its concerns about difficulties in securing access to treatment for individuals for services based in England. We must recognise that our system of health care is not separate from that in England and that we have a devolved system. We must develop working protocols to facilitate access to health care on the basis of need, when such care is best delivered across the border. Sometimes such protocols will be complex, but it will not be impossible.
	We must also address the issue of a postcode lottery within the NHS. That involves more than Wales having different policies from England, because different primary care trusts in England have different policies. We need a policy across our national health service that the prescription of drugs for serious conditions and the treatment of serious conditions should be determined on a UK-wide basis, and such a policy should be agreed by the Labour party in all parts of the United Kingdom.
	Another policy area also requires a UK-wide approach. The issue was apparent in the previous Parliament, and it will be much discussed in the years to come. At present, however, this is the calm before the storm. In 2009, the UK Government are committed to reviewing the impact of the Higher Education Act 2004, which introduced variable tuition fees for England and devolved higher education funding to Wales. I opposed the measure at the time, because I am against variable tuition fees and because the higher education system in Wales is too small to operate without regard to the system in England. That is the matter on which I fundamentally disagreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath.
	The system of student finance in the United Kingdom is hugely complex. In fact, it is more accurate to say that we have three separate systems for Wales, for England and for Scotland. For a student from Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government will pay the difference between the basic tuition fee and the increased fee permitted under the Higher Education Act 2004. It is therefore cheaper for a student from Wales to attend a university in Wales than one in England. I object to this policy in principle. It limits student choice, and it discourages students from choosing a course on the basis of which university and course is best for them.  [Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) indicating from a sedentary position that he is in favour of limiting the access of students from Wales to universities in England and Scotland? If so, that is interesting. I believe, on the contrary, that education is about broadening the mind, not narrowing it.
	Devolution of higher education funding to Wales was based on a false premise. Interestingly, it was repeated by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in evidence he recently gave to the Justice Committeehe was discussing tuition fees, although he was referring to Scotland at the time. The false premise is that it is possible to have separate higher education systems in the different nations of the United Kingdom. The right hon. and learned Gentleman offered the following example. He said that Scottish Members voted in the tuition fees debate and the Bill was carried only because of their votes, and he maintained that they were not affected by the introduction of that legislation relating to England. That is simply not correct, as what happens to the university sector in England is of profound consequence to the university sector in Scotlandthat is currently a matter of great debate in Scotland. Equally, there is great concern within the higher education sector in Wales that it will receive less finance in future because of the funding system in Wales and the fact that its funding might not be the same as that provided in England.
	In 2009, the review to be instituted under the assurances given when the Higher Education Act 2004 was debated will begin. At that time, consideration will be given as to whether to raise the current cap of 3,000. If it is raisedlet us say, for argument's sake, to 5,000there will be a further shortfall in the funding for Welsh higher education institutions, which the Welsh Assembly Government will need to fill if they are to maintain their policy. That is the train that is coming down the tracks but which everyone is ignoring at present. It is an issue of profound consequence not only to the higher education sector, but to Wales as a country and to the future of Wales. As we have heard, it is important that education and training is at the heart of what Wales will be about over the next few years, because if it is not we will be unable to compete with the developing economies in the rest of the world.

Mark Pritchard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this might provide as many opportunities as challenges? He will know that Harper Adams university college in my constituencyan agricultural universitydraws in students from Wales and England. Is there not an opportunity for institutions such as Aberystwyth and Harper Adams to collaborate?

Ian Lucas: I cannot comment on the working arrangements of institutions that are some distance apart. I will leave it up to the hon. Gentleman to make his representations on that in due course.
	We need to begin to look at the issue of higher education funding in Wales. I believe we should have a British system of higher education funding, and that the correct system for Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland is the graduate tax. I have always favoured that, as I believe that students should make a contribution to their later wealth, that that should be paid at a time when they can afford it, and that it should be linked to their income when they are earning and not to the course they pursue. The graduate tax is a solution that would enhance access to education and links within the United Kingdom, and it would be a British policy of which we could be proud. When we approach the review in 2009, we should put the proposal on the table because higher education institutions in Wales need to know and feel secure about their future funding. They have big investment decisions to make. If they are to base their future position on planned investment, the issue will need to be addressed soon.
	I should like to say a word about the Conservative position on cross-border services. I know that the hon. Member for Clwyd, West has been vocal about the delivery of such services. I intervened on the Leader of the Opposition during the Queen's Speech debate to ask whether he supported the principle of disallowing Members from Wales and Scotland from voting on what he described as English laws. He replied:
	We support having English votes for English laws, so that when purely English matters are discussed in the House it is Members of Parliament sitting for English seats who have the decisive say.[ Official Report, 6 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 18.]
	There has been a roaring silence from the Conservative party in Wales on this matter. Conservatives will be even more silent in representing their constituents if they disallow themselves from asking questions in this place about constituents who are treated in hospitals in England such as the Broadgreen, the Christie, and the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt.
	The fallacious nature of the Conservatives' argument is that there is such a thing as an English-only law. There are no English-only laws in relation to the national health service or higher education. In the United Kingdom, we have an integrated relationship with our neighbouring countries, and it is vital that that relationship is governed well by studied, intelligent links between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Such a structure will deliver good public services for our constituents, and only the Labour party will deliver those services.

Dai Davies: I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to this debate on behalf of my constituents. I thank the Secretary of State for the work that he has done for Wales in general and for higher and further education in my constituency, and for the time that he has spent in our local college of knowledge.
	We have heard about the importance of education and training. I hope everyone agrees that although previously our area relied primarily on two industriescoal and steelthe training provided through the steel industry was and is second to none. There is much to be learned and gained from examining the apprenticeship and production training structure in the plants at Port Talbot and Llanwern in particular, and Trostre, and the training methods used.
	The first issue I want to raise is local government funding. We have heard that there are strains on local government, given reductions in some of the finances available. I thank the Secretary of State for writing to me recently on the Barnett formula. Although I accept that significant sums have been poured into Wales, I ask hon. Members to examine a report issued by The Alliance in December. The Alliance is a group of local government representatives backed by the Labour Back-Bench group on regeneration. The report shows that although there has been an improvement in some areas, the gap between those who have the most and those who have the least is the same as it was eight or 10 years ago.
	The two areas that feature highly in the report are Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil, so it is important to review the Barnett formula. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I urge the Government to take part in that review, alongside the Welsh Assembly Government. I have copies of the report, if anyone wishes to obtain one.
	The second issue is incapacity benefit. We would all agree that we want those who can work to be in work. However, the approach that is being taken to drive the numbers down is wrong. I recently met a constituent, aged 64 and a halfpeople come off incapacity benefit at 65who has been on the benefit for 10 years. He is supported by his GP, but he has been told by a board that he is fit for work. How can I explain that to him when he says, I have not improved in 10 years. My health is not much better, the arthritis is worse and my back is still bad.? We cannot tell such people that they are now fit, especially if their GP supports their claim.
	I hope that we can take a slightly different approach. We do need to examine those on incapacity benefit, but we also need to examine how they get on the benefit in the first place. For years, in areas such as mine, people would come out of a traditional heavy industry and go on to incapacity benefit. That mentality has continued, so it is a case not just of getting people off the benefit, but of examining who is put on it and seeing how we can help them. Often, there are jobs that they could do.

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the reasons why people go on to incapacity benefit. Does he share my concern about the role of some GPs in the process, who open the gate too easily for people to migrate from employment or other benefits on to long-term incapacity benefit?

Dai Davies: There is great concern about such misunderstanding by general practitioners. They do not know the benefits system and sometimes think that incapacity benefit is an easy option. We need an education process for GPs, so that they can understand what they are doing when they sign people on for benefits.
	The next issue follows on from a point made by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). There is huge concern about objective 1 funding. It has provided masses of money and opportunity for Wales, and there have been improvements, but we have missed the boat. In Blaenau Gwent, we still have areas with boarded-up shops. The small and medium enterprises do not exist there at the moment and need to be encouraged. Our biggest concern is that convergence funding has now replaced objective 1 funding, and it has a time limit on it. What happens next? Blaenau Gwent still does not have sufficient sustainability and too many projects rely on objective 1 and convergence funding. When those funds are removed, those projects will be under threat. Significant numbers of people are employed through objective 1 funding. What will happen to them if and when we lose convergence funding? The sector of the economy that relies on project work and the development trusts is fragile, and it will be under threat very soon.
	I spoke in this debate last year on the issue of tourism and I mentioned a part of the Secretary of State's constituency, Big Pit, which is a huge draw. In Blaenau Gwent we want to be part of that. As I said to someone last week, the area is full of relics and I would be happy to welcome people who came to see them. Our industrial heritage and history is second to none. Who built America? Who sent coal, steel and iron all over the world? It was the south Wales valleys. Nor should we forget Nye Bevan and the creation of the national health service. However, 12 months after that debate, we have not generated anywhere near the capacity for tourism of areas such as Blaenau Gwent.
	Another issue affecting the community is energy. We heard earlier that Wales can lead the waythe Severn barrage is probably one of the biggest examplesbut there is a problem with wind farms. Like open-cast mining, they give rise to nimbyism: Not in my back yard. But when we look around us, especially on the mountain tops and at the tops of the valleys in our area, we see opportunities for positioning wind farms. However, I reiterate the point that has been made: it needs to be done with the people rather than against them. It is important that we bring the people along and that they support wind farms rather than trying to stop them.
	The issue of the Olympics has been raised. If hill walking is an Olympic event by 2012, could Blaenau Gwent please be considered? We have plenty of facilities for that, although maybe not for much else.
	In the past couple of months, many hon. Members, including the Secretary of State, have been approached by their police authorities, which have expressed concern about ongoing funding for police in our areas. My major concern is that we will lose the fluffy bits that people see as an add-on, such as the partnership and communities together meetings and the community part of policing. I hope that that is not the case. I have written to the Secretary of State about the police issues, and we have had assurances that those services will not be undercut. They are important.
	Beyond supporting community support officers and their project within policing, one area in which we have a significant lack is help for young people. I recently visited a rehabilitation centre in Bristol for those addicted to alcohol and drugs. People as young as 18 and 19 were in that establishment, and one of the things that came out of my visit was that those people had had no contact with anyone for much of their young lives due to family breakdowns, for instance. Alongside police work and education, we need to invest in youth workers. There is a significant lack of people who can deal face to face and one to one with young people to understand their problems and anxieties. With the loss of the steel and coal industries, young people have experienced a loss of identity. To bring back that identity and a sense of belonging, we need to look after them; as my grandmother used to say, they need to be given a cwtsh. They need to be taken close and looked after, because their families are failing in some respects to look after those children. Although the funds are there for policing, we need a lot more face-to-face work to be done in the community.

Mark Pritchard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government could do far more to support existing youth services, such as the Air Training Corps, the Army Cadet Force, the Sea Cadet Corps and indeed the Scouts and Girl Guides?

Dai Davies: The important thing about that is how we promote those types of activity through schools. We do not see young children being told at primary school level what activities are available in the community. I agree wholeheartedly: to draw young people into such activities is wonderful. Having been part of the Scout movement, and having a young son in the Scouts now, I know that it is a fantastic organisation. The hon. Gentleman is right. Young people have so many opportunities that they perhaps do not recognise.
	A recent change in law with which I have a problem is the alcohol confiscation law. It is easy to put a law in place, but how it can be policed I honestly do not know. There is a growing problem of young people on street corners with cans and bottles of alcohol. It is going to be a difficult one to police.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for giving me the time to speak. We have heard a significant amount about post office closures this afternoon, and I support everything that right hon. and hon. Members have said. The Government have embarked recently on a nationalisation programme that I support 110 per cent. It is only one bank at the moment, but who knows? In terms of the post offices, one of my constituents, Peter Chambers, has come up with a possible solution. If we nationalise the lottery, run it through the Government and place the terminals in every post office in the country rather than in supermarkets, maybe that would help support the post offices by bringing businesses into them, in the way that we heard about earlier on. It would sustain their future in all our communities.

Paul Flynn: It is a pleasure for me to follow, for the first time, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Davies). Our backgrounds have a great deal in common, and I should like to take up some of the themes that he raised. It is also a pleasure to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his return to office, for two reasons. The first has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes): now that my right hon. Friend is in office, he can indulge fully in what the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey decided was his passion for Welsh devolution, and his deep enthusiasm for the Welsh language. The second reason why I welcome my right hon. Friend back to office is that it means that his time will be fully occupied. It will be busy in the office, so he will have less energy and time for some of the activities to do with devolution in which he was involved, together with his comrade, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). That will be extremely beneficial.
	Sir Martin Evans has been mentioned. We are all very proud that the professor of mammalian genetics at Cardiff university has won a Nobel prize, together with others, and we are proud of the other winner of a prize in Cardiff. Sir Martin is a proud Welshman and he delights in his roots in the capital city. The best thing about the win is that his work, which involves embryos, is in an area in which there are boundless opportunities for development. There are possible future Nobel prize winners in a little-known firm in Newport called Lifeforce. It was founded by Professor Bradley Stringer and a man with an exotic Welsh namealthough he is WelshMr. Del DelaRonde.
	The firm is in the business of parking immune systems. It is an exotic business; a sample of blood, in pristine condition, is taken from a healthy patient, and the white cells are extracted and kept in three different locations. When the immune system is attacked by disease, or is weakened by chemotherapy or radiotherapy, it is possible to expose the white cells to a natural growth factor that multiplies them into an army of healthy white cells, which are re-infused into the patient. That is an exciting possibility. Lifeforce in Newport owns world patents. It already has a link with the Fraunhofer Institute in Munich and a firm in America. It is one of only three companies that are in partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
	The possibilities are immense, if one thinks of how the technology could be used. It could be used for AIDS patients. If someone who has HIV gets full-blown AIDS, and has a re-infusion of their healthy immune system, they could go back to where they were, with HIV, and with full-blown AIDS in remission. That is causing a great deal of excitement in the scientific world. The company is wholly Welsh. Its founder, the professor, is a former patent examiner in Newport. One of the crucial factors is that the firm has a link that has been approved, and unique patents. Approval has come from the Food and Drug Administration in America, and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in the UK. There is the possibility of huge expansion in that field. We are talking about the medicine of the future, and I think that it will certainly rank with surgery, radiotherapy and various drugs as a cancer treatment in future.
	That is one example of the great things that are happening in Wales. It is part of our pride in Newport, a city that is in a very healthy state. We are looking forward to the year of the general election, 2010, but there will be another major event in Newport in that year: the Ryder cup. There is so much activity going on in the town. Newport is being reborn; it will be Newport nouveau. There is a big new boulevard running through the town. The other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Jessica Morden) saw the plans for its new rugby stadium. The railway station is undergoing a major makeover. There are great things happening in our city and it is a chance to be very optimistic about it.
	Yesterday a new 10-year drugs strategy was announced. It is unfortunate that we have not had a debate on it or even a statement. We had a statement in the House 10 years ago, when the previous drugs strategy was supported by all major parties. There was only one Back Bencher who objected. Before we embark on a second drugs strategy, we should look at the result of the past 10 years, acknowledging that the treatment target is the only target that has been met. We have not come anywhere near reaching the targets that were set for the reduction of drugs use, the reduction of drugs-related crime and the reduction in drugs-related deaths.
	We should look at the experience of other countries. Portugal had a five-year drugs strategy in 2001, the result of which is that the number of drug deaths was halved in that country. In other countries, too, spectacular results have been achieved. Let me speak about my experience, as one constituency MP. Two people living in my constituency would be recorded in the statistics of the past 10 years, and both had similar experiences in the past 18 months. They went to jail because they were stealing to feed their addiction. They will be marked up as great successes because they went in as drug users and came out clean. That is the end of the happy story. The woman lived for a week after she came out of prison. The man lived for a day after he came out of prison. They both went back to taking heroin, at the normal dose that they had tolerated before, and they died.
	When we look at the continuing scourge of drugs throughout Wales, we largely ignore the remedies that are available. There has been a slight decrease recently in the number of deaths, and there have been improvements, which I would argue have come from treatmentfrom the health outcomes. There is also optimism in Europe that we are moving away from the policy that we are all signed up to as members of the United Nationsa 10-year strategy that was designed to eliminate or reduce substantially all drug cultivation and drug use. That policy was adopted in 1998 and comes up to be examined this year.
	There has been no progress whatever anywhere on the planet in achieving that end, yet we are still in denial. When the tough policies fail, we go on to other policies that continue to fail. A Bill that is to come before the House proposes that we should go for more policies based on the criminal justice system. There is one lesson that stares us in the face when we look at the experience of the past 40 years, since we started to get tough on drugs in 1971, when there were fewer than 1,000 addicts in Britain. We have had tough policies, we have imprisoned many people, we have done everything to eliminate drugs use, but there are now 280,000 drug addicts and that number is rising.
	Other countries have achieved great success in reducing drug addiction. One reason to be optimistic is our realisation that we can no longer rely on the criminal justice system. That is counter-productive and wasteful. There is not a prison in the country where all illegal drugs are not used. However, schemes for needle exchanges, injection rooms and substitution are cheaper and they work. They produce good results and reduce drug crime and the number of users.
	A new convention will come before Ministers in a month or two, based on changing from the criminal justice system to health outcomes. There is another splendid document produced by the same group of people, called the Rome Consensus, which has been approved by the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 130 countries and there is a chance of that going through the United Nations. There is hope that we can change our view, but it will be by changing our attitudes.
	When the barriers came down in the Soviet Union and the drugs flowed in, the authorities had no way of dealing with them, so they turned to us in the west. What they got was not a strategy that worked but a babble of voices giving them different advice, with the result that there are now 5 million addicts in the CIS. A hospital outside Moscow, which I do not recommend anyone visits, is filled with children all born with AIDS, all the children of sex workers and drug users. We have seen that scourge spread across the planet.
	We can change our policy. In 2005, shortly before the election, the House decided to reclassify magic mushrooms in the same category as heroin. No main party opposed that because they did not want to be pilloried as being soft on drugs. Because of that lack of courage and failure to recognise the problem, we are acting as agents in continuing the scourge.

Mark Pritchard: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify a growing drugs problem in Wales, but I must disagree with him on abandoning the criminal justice system, which I agree needs to work hand in hand with health outcomes. Does he share my concern that we also need to deal with the sources of supply of these drugs, and that it is absolutely wrong that drug liaison officers have been withdrawn since the Serious Organised Crime Agency took over that role in foreign countries from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs?

Paul Flynn: Trying to deal with the source of supply is utterly futile. The Colombian authorities have been trying for 30 years, and we are seeing the Colombianisation of Afghanistan. The British taxpayer has spent 250 million in Afghanistan and the lives of many of our soldiers have been lost in trying to stop the drugs supply at source. The result is that the production of drugs in Afghanistan last year went up by 60 per cent. and the price of heroin on the streets of Britain is the lowest that it has ever been. It is a complete myth that the supply of drugs can be stopped at source.
	This is an international problem, but we have our problems in Wales as well. However, I am optimistic about our situation. When I walked as a 17-year-old from Grangetown across the docks in Cardiff to Guest, Keen and Nettleford's nail factory, where I worked at that time, the landscape was bleak, with cranes and railway lines, and now the place is transformed. We have a wonderful sitethe new bayscape with the Senedd, a jewel of a building.
	A group of people from New York came to see me recently and their teacher told me to ask them their favourite television programme, and it was Torchwood, which has images of Cardiff bay. That is part of what has been going on for the first time for centuries. We have heard some bleak and jaundiced views about devolution, but for the first time for centuries young people, creative, talented and entrepreneurial people, from Wales do not have to come to London to earn their fortune. In fact, the flow is coming the other way, just as the flow of power is coming the other way. That is inevitable, and it will continue. If they say English votes for English Members, so it will happen. The process of devolution will continue, and it cannot be resisted. People may stand in the stream and say no, but the flow will go on from now.
	We will see the results of that in the nation's growing self-confidence and the growing popularity of devolution. John Shortridge recently gave some figures showing that it was accepted in Wales by a hair's breadth, but now the opposition has declined. There are people who have been anti-devolution, who I can recall in 1979 being against the campaign and who will never have anything good to say about devolution, but we can look with optimism at what is happening in our country.
	There are two places that I would like to be tomorrow to see what Dewi Sant would have recognised when he said, Bydd llawen, cadw'r ffyddbe happy, keep the faithalthough he might have been surprised just how many faiths there are in Wales now. The first of those two places, where Welsh life will be in its purest and best form, is the village school in Arfon in Gwynedd. The young children there speak Welsh with great fluency and understanding; language has come down the centuries continuously. It is a miracle that the ancient Welsh language still survives and is still there in such schools. The second place is another school, in Pillgwenlly, Newport. The children there are of every possible hue and from every part of the world. They will be saying their prayers and conducting their St. David's day ceremonies. During prayers, half the class will join their hands together in the Christian way, and the other half according to the Muslim tradition, but they will be saying the same prayers and singing the same songs in both beautiful languages of Wales.

Anne Main: It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), whom I congratulate on having the Ryder cup in Newport; I pass the city's wonderful golf course on the way to my mother in Cardiff. He may not be aware that St. Albans is the home of the Ryder cupindeed, the beautiful golf course there is known as the Ryder Cup golf course. We have transported something over the border, and I am pleased about that.
	One might ask why the MP for St. Albans is talking in the Welsh affairs debate. It is a delight to be here; not only was I born and brought up in Wales and educated at Swansea university, but there is a vibrant and thriving Welsh society in St. Albans. It was delightful to address the St. Albans St. David's day dinner last yearbriefly but not very well in Welsh, I might add.
	My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) drew attention to the fact that there are not many leeks in the Chamber. I am sure that many of us have fond memories of eisteddfods, during which there used to be macho leek-chewing eventsfrequently resulting in dragon's breath. We all chewed our leeks and wore our daffodils with pride. Like other hon. Members, I am wearing a fake daffodil today; I thank Marie Curie Cancer Care, which issued us with these little silk daffodils. The organisation does wonderful work in my constituency, where it founded a hospice, and in other constituencies. I pay tribute to it.
	Unfortunately, I am old enough to have grown up in Wales during a huge transition period. Meibion Glyndwr came into being as a result of concerns in Wales, expressed at the time, about how much Englishness there was in the Principality. The civil disobedience that I watched as a child in the 1960sthe daubing of the road signs in 1967, for examplewas of major concern to my parents. Many people in England wondered what people in Wales were playing at.
	There was a serious issue at the time about Welsh speaking. Although my school was good at encouraging the Welsh language, and taught Welsh, that was not the case at many schools. The 1961 census showed that Welsh was on a huge decline. That has been reversed in a very short time and that is wonderful. Not many other languages could have achieved the renaissance that Welsh has enjoyed so quickly. Unfortunately, however, some of the questionable practices of Meibion Glyndwr and others resulted in cottage burning and the daubing of road signs in a wonderful shade of green. The old joke doing the rounds at the time was, Come home to a real firebuy a cottage in Wales! None of that did Wales's image any good at all and it made us a lot of enemies as well as friends.
	The Cardiff and Swansea of my youth have been wonderfully transformed. The hon. Member for Newport, West referred to Grangetown; many of us were aware of the more industrialised parts of Cardiff. Crumbling, deprived areas such as Splott and even infamous Tiger Bay are now part of a vibrant reconstruction that draws many visitors into Cardiff and makes a visit to the Principality a wonderful experience. There has been a huge injection of money, energy and even glamour into the city.
	Torchwood has been mentioned; my son was delighted to hear his grandmother point out houses in Doctor Who that she had been standing near when the film cameras came along. We all appreciate the assets of Wales, although we may not realise that we are seeing them in programmes such as Doctor Who. The rippling out of prosperity and the enticement of money and business investment have been to the good of Cardiff and Wales as a whole.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) mentioned the hope and optimism now expressed in Wales, and she was right to do so. Any deprived areaI have them in St. Albansthat is made to think well of itself and encouraged to think big and look to the future can profit from that hope and optimism.
	There has been some debate, which I would not engage in, about whether more power or less power should be given to Wales. However, I am concernedspeaking as a Welsh-born MP but representing an English constituencythat we do not hear enough in the Chamber about the good bits of Wales. The appointment of regional Ministers, which some would say has been a great asset to Wales and the other regions, has also left us with a gaping hole. I was expectingI stand to be corrected if I am wrongthat there was going to be a Select Committee for the regions that would give hon. Members the chance to question regional Ministers about what was going on in those regions, and indeed in Wales. That is a broken promise and a breach of trust on the part of the Government. This House should be able to hold the regional Ministers to account. The large amounts of funding that have profited Wales, and other areas, so well are fantastic, but we need to be able to talk to the regional Ministers and ask them exactly what is going on. My constituents' taxes are going towards that funding process, and they would like to be able to find out what the regional Ministers have been up to and assess their roles and value.

Mark Pritchard: I know that my hon. Friend will want to give credit to the Government where it is due, so does she join me in giving them credit for eventually listening to Conservative Members and appointing a full-time Secretary of State for Wales instead of a part-time one? Perhaps they might also listen in relation to Scotland and the Ministry of Defence.

Anne Main: My hon. Friend is right. As a Conservative Member, I hope to see the shadow Secretary of State for Wales slip into those shoes as a full-time role. As someone who was born in Wales, I cannot imagine having a part-time Secretary of State, but there it is.
	I wish Wales well in its upward trajectory of prosperity and self-determination. We have a lot to learn from Wales. My father grew up on one of the largest mono-tenure estates built after the warElywhich has had significant problems. We have heard about some of the policing issues that are of concern not only to my constituents but to Welsh constituents. We need more police on the streets and for people to feel safe. Sadly, there was a very tragic case on the Ely estate when a father who went out to challenge a group of yobs was kicked to death. That is not the estate that my father would have recognised as a boy. Yes, it was social housing, yes, there were problems, but there was not that fear of challenging a group of young peoplea message that comes across to my constituents and others. I should like there to be a stronger policing role in Wales, as well as in my constituency, and I should like to bring back the situation whereby if adults challenge a group of children they do not feel that they are being confrontational but more as they did in my youth. I remember that when the heddlu turned up, they thought nothing of giving us a ticking off if we were doing something wrong.
	I wish Wales well, but I am somewhat disappointed that the Government have not delivered the promised level of scrutiny of the regional Ministers, including those representing Wales.

John Smith: It is an honour and a privilege to follow an Ely girl and to take part in our traditional Welsh affairs debate. It is close to St. David's day, the day of our patron saint, and a day when we should celebrate all that is Welsh and refer to our successes.
	We have heard some excellent speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House. They tended to be general in their subject matter, but I would rather focus my comments on a great success for Wales that was alluded to by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan)the military training academy that is coming to St. Athan. That is something that we can all celebrate: not only the people of south Wales but the people of the whole of Wales. If we get our act together and get this right, not only through the investment coming to us, but through taking advantage of this investment and marketing it to ensure that we maximise the benefits for the people of Wales, it will be a once-in-a-generation opportunity for us all.
	I want to set out briefly exactly where we are on the question of the academy. The Government made a welcome and excellent announcement on 31 January, in which they said that they were releasing contracts to allow the lion's share of package 1 of the defence training review to proceed on course and on time. At moments, I thought that the world had caved in because all the reports we had through the media suggested that something had gone wrong and that Wales had lost something. In fact, this country made a huge gain.
	Within the last 24 hours, I have heard comments in this Chamber suggesting that package 1, which represents two thirds of the entire transformation of defence training in this countryall the phase 2 and phase 3 technical training for the tri-service would not come to St. Athan. Yesterday, in this Chamber, it was suggested that it would not. Let me tell the House that it definitely is. In the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whom I am delighted to see back in the place where he belongsalthough he is not there at the momentpackage 1 is absolutely safe.
	The Metrix consortium won that bid in open competition, and it won it by a long way. For the record, it did not win the bid for that other section of this major transformation of British defence training, which is long overdue and welcome. It did not win package 2. It had been announced as the provisional bidder to be considered if it could put everything together and save huge amounts of money for the Government. However, it did not, so the announcement on 31 January was that the competition for the private finance initiative for package 2 had been withdrawn and closed. That does not mean that it is not coming to south Wales or that it is not coming to St. Athan. The transformation of the skills sets in that package is still going to take place; they will still be modernised, rationalised and relocated. If we get our act together on the investment to begin with, Wales is in a very strong positionpole positionto attract all, or a huge chunk, of the defence training programme.

Cheryl Gillan: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, cross-party support for winning the training contract and bringing it to St. Athan was very strong. He obviously knows something that I do not, however. Is there still a possibility of the second package coming to St. Athan? If there is, he is giving the impression that he knows the time frame involved. My understanding was that the process had been pushed out into the long grass and was probably not going to happen at this stage, or for many years to come.

John Smith: Absolutely not. That is why I wanted to make this point today. It is important that we in Wales know exactly where we stand. There is no package 2 because there is no group of skillspersonnel management, logistics, languages, photography, policing, intelligencein a package going out to tender for a PFI. Butand it is a big butall those skills are going to be rationalised. That was made absolutely clear in a written statement made on 31 January. My point is a simple one. The process will take longer, and the hon. Lady is right in that respect, but there is no reason why that work, or the lion's share of it, should not be located at St. Athan. In fact, there are not many other places that the work could go to.

Cheryl Gillan: I hope that what the hon. Gentleman is saying is absolutely correct. I understand, not least because the language college is near to my constituency, that one of the problems was that the skills sets could not be found. I would not want him to mislead the House or anyone else by saying that there would be any immediate transfer of any of package 2 to St. Athan. My understanding is that such changes lie many, many years in the future.

John Smith: That is not so. The timetable for the transformation under the defence training review, which was arguably the most important part of the Government's strategic defence review, is the next five years. That applies to package 1, too. My understanding is that the problem was not the skills sets, to which the hon. Lady referred, but affordability and whether savings could be made from economies of scale from the project to base a whole-programme solution on one site. It is important to remain positive and ensure that we maximise our opportunities to get all the investment to Wales.
	We have won two thirds of the total investment under the defence training review. However, more than two thirds of the money and jobs will come to St. Athan. A higher proportion of package 1 is going to relocate to St. Athan. Under package 2, a much smaller proportion would have relocated. We therefore have more than two thirds of the investment.

Mark Pritchard: In the light of package 2 having been kicked into the long grass, will the hon. Gentleman revise the employment figures that he and other members of the Labour party have been publishing in Wales? The Welsh people have a right to know the number of jobs that are coming to Wales.

John Smith: I would love to do that and I shall do so immediately. I qualify my remarks by saying that the final negotiations are not complete and will not be for some time. I hope that Main Gate 2 will be ready in spring, and we will have a clearer picture then. However, I shall give the revised figures. There will be roughly just over 1,000 trainers' jobsin training design and general training provisionjust over 1,000 support jobs for training on the site; and 1,000 full-time military jobs on the site. That is approximatelywe must be careful3,000 jobs.
	Metrix has used the most conservative calculations to show that it will create at least 1,500 jobs in the wider community of my constituency of Vale of Glamorgan and south Wales generally. Metrix uses a multiplier of 0.5. That means that every new military jobuniform or civilianthat comes to St. Athan will create half a job in the community. The company therefore estimates 1,500 jobs and a total of 4,500. That is down from the original total of 5,500 but I stress that the estimate is conservative. The usual multiplier for military bases that move into an area and provide work is between one and a half and three times the number of military jobs.
	The number of jobs that we get in Wales depends on us, not Metrix or anybody else. It depends on our preparedness to take up the jobs and the opportunities that come our way as a result of the process. If one read the BBC website on the day of the announcement, one would have believed that we had lost out. The calculation that I explained does not include the training of at least 6,500 military engineers every year at St. Athan. The jobs that that will create are not even factored in. It is a huge opportunity.

Mark Pritchard: The hon. Gentleman mentioned 1,000 trainers. Is he aware of a recent PCS survey, which revealed that 98 per cent. of trainers in other parts of the country who have been asked to relocate to Wales are either unwilling or unable to do so? In the national interest, it is important that the Government provide clarity on the issue. It is no good having trainees in Wales if there are no trainers.

John Smith: I am fully aware of that. We must consider the age profile of existing trainers, excellent though they are. Although the existing training is excellent, it is not what we want for the future. That is the problem. Training must change in its approach and in the technologies that we use. The methodology, too, must change. The old skills training is no good and the reason is the age profile. Nearly all the trainers are ex-military personnel who have transferred to civilian work, so they are getting on a bit. We are talking about a five-year programme, so how old will they be in five years' time? However, a five-year recruitment period and having to train people was always factored in from day one.
	We hear about 5,000 or 6,000 on the jobs front, but that is a very modest estimate indeed from package 1, and we may still get the rest of the investment. We are currently talking about 11 billion coming to Wales in a private finance initiative. If we get everything, the figure could be as much as 16 billion or 17 billion, which is a huge amount. Some 60 million a year is going into the local economy in direct spend. But let me make what might be quite a startling announcement: that is not the real attraction of the investment and ensuring that we, the Welsh, get most of it is not the real challenge.
	Today's debate has been excellent. A number of colleagues in all parts of the House, including the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Davies) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), stressed the importance of upskilling the labour force, especially in technical skills, to allow us to compete with the rest of the world. The real attraction of the investment is that St. Athan in south Wales will be the largest centre of excellence for providing training in technical skills that are directly transferable to civilian work. As part of the military covenant, the qualifications that our servicemen and women will acquire, and which they justly deserve, will be exactly the same as those in engineeringlet us remember that that means aeronautical, mechanical and electronic engineeringand ICT. Those are all the things that have been mentioned this afternoon and in which Wales will become the largest centre of excellence in Europe. It will become the second largest centre of excellence for such training in the world.
	It is an honour to listen to my old friend the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, because in a previous incarnation I had the privilege of trying to attract footloose investment into his beautiful constituency and into the whole of the beautiful county of Gwent. I therefore have an intimate knowledge of the barriers to attracting footloose investment into our country. We need high value-added footloose investment. Traditionally, we did well in mineral extraction and metal manufacture, but the high skills involved in those industries did not translate very well into the manufacture of white goods or the modern factory. Those jobs were reasonably well paid for Wales and solved our unemployment problem, but were not very good, in terms of under-employment and not upskilling people.
	That is the real challenge that our country faces. We have a unique opportunity to present ourselves as one of the largest centres of excellence in the world for some of the most sought-after technical skills in the world. That is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that we should grasp with both hands and ensure that we get as much as we can.
	We talk about jobs and investment, and there is not one company in the world that will not be interested in what is going on in south Wales, because it will achieve a critical mass of skills training. It does not matter that the training is in uniforms. The tutors will not be in uniforms for ever, just as the old RAF St. Athan and the excellent skills provided there in deep repair and aircraft maintenance attracted companies such as British Airways. It is no accident that British Airways is at Rhoose airport. It is there because of the centre of excellence that was just up the roadfrankly, it used to poach people from just up the road. It is no accident that General Electric went to Nantgarw. It went there because of the skills training at RAF St. Athan.
	That is a microcosm of what we can expect if package 1 alone comes to Wales. I call on colleagues in all parts of the House to say, This is the challenge that we face in Wales. This could transform our country's reputation in the world as a clever little country in those vital areas. We have everything to play for, and we need to move forward on this. It is an exciting opportunity for our country, and I am sure that we will live up to the challenge. I think it was Richard Burton who said that the Welsh could face anything except success or failure. He was right about many things, but I believe that we have a great opportunity to prove him absolutely wrong on that one, because we are going to win.
	Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the role played by Mr. Mike Hayle, the chief executive of the Metrix consortium. He led his team from day one and delivered this gigantic investment for our country. Mike will be moving on in a few months' time, having delivered the investment. He is a project leader, and it is now for someone else to deal with the technical implementation. He is going on to other challenges, but I would like to place on record my thanks for the work that he has done, and to wish him all the best in the future, whatever he decides to do.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I see that three hon. Members are trying to catch my eye. The wind-ups are due to start at 5.30, so perhaps hon. Members will try to bear that in mind.

Hywel Williams: I am grateful to be called to speak in the debate. I was unable to be here at the start as I was seeing some of the people who contributed to our very successful St. David's day service this morning. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those people, including the venerable Meurig Llwyd Williams, the archdeacon of Bangor, who preached, the noted actor, Mr. John Griffith, and those from Ysgol Gymraeg Llundain and Ysgol Gymraeg Cwm Gwyddon who sang.
	I would also like to mention the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who is unfortunately not in his place. He sometimes has a fierce reputation among nationalists, but he did his very best to ensure that the Welsh school from Islwyn, Ysgol Gymraeg Cwm Gwyddon, contributed this morning.

Elfyn Llwyd: And very well, too.

Hywel Williams: Indeed. I think that everyone enjoyed the service.
	My subject this afternoon is the need for new Welsh language legislation. The Welsh Assembly Government's vision is to create a truly bilingual Wales, as set out in the iaith pawbthe national action plan for a bilingual Walesfrom February 2003. What they mean by a truly bilingual country is a country in which people can choose to live their lives through the medium of either Welsh or English, or both, and in which the presence of the two languages is a source of pride and strength to us all. That was illustrated this morning in the service.
	That vision presents a significant challenge to the Assembly and to us here in Westminster. It might seem strange to those hon. Members who sometimes have a peculiar view of the policies of my party, but I attach great importance to this place passing legislation for Wales, in the medium term, for practical reasons. If, for example, we wanted to change the status of the Welsh Language Boarda necessary step, in my viewwe should have to change the Welsh Language Act 1993, and that can only be done here. Clearly, there is a role for this place.
	It will be a significant challenge to enable everyone who wishes to do so to live their life through the medium of Welsh or English as fully as possible. The intentions outlined in the iaith pawb represent a step in the right direction, but I believe that much more will have to be done in order for the Welsh Assembly Government to succeed in their aim. I need only to refer to my experiences in my constituency surgeries to illustrate that point. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has had similar experiences. I regularly see constituents who have in some way or another not been allowed to use Welsh or even, unfortunately, faced abuse for using it. It might have been mild abuse, but it was abuse none the less. They have had those experiences in their dealings with private businesses andsignificantly, given that the long-established provisions of the 1993 Act apply to the public sectorthey have also had problems with the public sector.
	People are also having problems using Welsh with third parties. Some hon. Members will know that the provisions of 1993 Act apply to third parties and private companies acting on behalf of public bodies. It remains problematic, as the third parties are not carrying out the language schemes approved by the Welsh Language Board for public bodies. In that respect, the 1993 Act is not working properly.
	All that is quite apart from the denial of workers' rights to use Welsh in the workplace, as we saw unfortunately in the Thomas Cook affair last year. There is a long history to this problem and my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will remember the Brewer Spinks case in the 1960s. Those misunderstandings in the private sector can be resolved, as in the Thomas Cook case, very amicably, when the nature of the problem is appreciated and senior managers get involved.
	There remains a fair way to go. When public bodies are launching new documents or a new service, I frequently write to them, asking simply Where is the Welsh version?. All too often, I am met by embarrassment and excuses, although that is a good deal better than it used to be. When I first started to take an interest in language issues, I would have been met by hostility rather than embarrassment and excuses. I do not want to whinge too much, as there is often no need to write to ask for the Welsh version nowadays, as in many cases it turns up automatically. That is progress. I am not saying that we need to change everything today or tomorrow; we are talking about a process that will probably last many, many years.

Cheryl Gillan: I think that the hon. Gentleman may be pleased to hear about another piece of progress. Tomorrow, in Llandudno, the very exciting Welsh Conservative conference will be openingand for the first time we will be using a Welsh simultaneous translation service. It is at great cost, but we are looking forward to it. I hope that he will join me in welcoming that piece of progress from the party that gave this country the Welsh Language Act 1993.

Hywel Williams: I certainly welcome that. It is an innovation that other parties could follow. It should not be left to individuals such as my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and me to press public bodies to follow language schemes. We need more progress in that respect and we need more effective policy implementation, a change in attitudes and a change in education, encouragement and support. We also need further legislation. All that will be necessary to achieve the Assembly's vision.
	Some hon. Members may recall my private Member's Bill last yearthe Bilingual Juries (Wales) Bill, which was one small step in the right direction. I hope that we will hear a positive announcement in due course.

Stephen Crabb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hywel Williams: In view of the time constraints, no.
	I would like to draw hon. Members' attention to a report that I commissioned about two years ago, which has just been published. It is called, Creu Cymru Gwbl Ddwyieithog, Creating an Entirely Bilingual Wales. It was written by Dr. Kathryn Jones of Cwmni Iaitha group of entirely independent academics, so there is no party political content in the report. As hon. Members who have looked at it will know, it is a hefty piece of work, comprising some 38 recommendations as to ways forward. I have distributed the report widely and I hope that its welcome by the Welsh Language Board and the Welsh Assembly Government will be replicated elsewhere. I hope that we will have a proper debate about it.
	Finally, let me add another detail. It is all very well commissioning large reports from experts. I was crossing the maesthe squarein Caernarfon late one night, returning from the office. As I saw all those people out there enjoying themselves, I wondered how one could reach them. It is all very well for experts and politicians to discuss this, but what about ordinary people? I struck on the idea of what I have called Wikideddfuwiki law-making, which is a user-generated site where people can add their thoughts on any matter of legislation, although it is about language at the moment. It is an edited site. If, for example, the Secretary of State were to put down his thoughts I could edit them, and he could re-edit them into their original form. After three months or so, we will see what the people have said. If I may make a modest claim, I believe it is the first site of its kind in the world.
	As those who are familiar with Wikipedia will know, entries are generated by users and we trust people to correct any inaccuracies. If someone writes that two and two are five, someone else will change five to four, and if five is reinserted, it will be changed to four again. That is the principle, at any rate.
	I hope that we shall have a continual conversation on Wikideddfu over the next three months. I commend it to Members, and to anyone else in Wales who wants to contribute to this interesting debate.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Secretary of State looks enthused.

Hywel Williams: He does indeed.

Nia Griffith: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not being present earlier. I was serving on the Committee considering the Education and Skills Bill, and I reminded the Committee that there are a number of ways in which the National Assembly can exercise its powers. For instance, it can use framework powers to introduce measures similar to Bills such as the Education and Skills Bill in Wales. It is entirely appropriate for the Assembly to have that option, and I know that many people in Wales will look to it eagerly to determine how the issues that the Committee has debated at such length will be dealt with there. The Assembly can apply its framework powers to a number of Bills, and I hope it will exercise its right to determine the appropriate form in which they can exist in Wales.
	We are very concerned about climate change at the moment, and we look forward to the Climate Change Bill, which will be introduced shortly. It contains a section on adaptation and mitigation, a subject with which some people may not be familiar. There are many different projections about the effect of climate change, but it is generally agreed that weather patterns are likely to become much more unpredictable, making events such as flooding ever more likely. There was a salutary warning to all of us last summer, when we saw pictures of those devastating floods on our television screens. I for one began to think more seriously about how we could cope with such events in our own areas.
	I know that the Environment Agency in Wales has used the most up-to-date techniques to produce new maps pinpointing with great accuracy the areas that are likely to be affected by flooding, be it river or coastal flooding. A fortnight ago I visited the agency in Cross Hands to see what it was doing to identify areas at risk and to improve flood defences. Its staff explained the flood alert system, which can send messages to the telephones of people living in high-risk areas to warn them of possible flooding. I shall meet agency representatives again next week at the Llanelli flooding forum, a body that I have set up, to discuss how we can do more to increase awareness of flooding, and of the Environment Agency's system for dealing with it.
	Last summer we also saw frightening pictures of water encroaching on power substations and flooding ambulance stations. That brought home vividly the need to consider the relocation of such installations to areas that will remain free of flooding. Some of them are reserved mattersfor instance, a police headquarters is the responsibility of the United Kingdom Governmentwhile others, such as ambulance stations, are the responsibility of the Assembly Government, and organisations such as the utilities are in the private sector. This is a clear example of the need for joined-up thinking, and I call on the Secretary of State to raise awareness of flood risk and ensure that there are plans to allow the safeguarding or even the relocation of strategic structures.
	We also need to make sure that we plan future development with our eyes clearly opened to the flooding risks. Now that the Environment Agency is a statutory consultee in planning matters, it gives detailed advice on planning issues to local councils and to the Assembly Government. Currently, however, water companies are not statutory consultees, which is why, when I spoke on Second Reading of the Planning Bill, I emphasised to the Minister the crucial role of companies such as Dwr Cymru, Welsh Water, in assessing whether our existing infrastructure could cope with increased load from new developments. Clearly, where the infrastructure cannot cope, that can greatly increase the risk of flooding from river water and sea water, as well as foul water flooding.
	I was delighted that the Minister replied that it was the intention that water companies should become statutory consultees. I very much hope that when the Assembly uses its powers to deal with the measures for Wales arising from the Planning Bill, Dwr Cymru will become a statutory consultee for planning matters in Wales.
	I wish to refer to some important constituency matters that are relevant to the whole of Wales. We have a long tradition of heavy industry in my area, as do many areas of south Wales and some parts of the north. It is extremely important that we make absolutely certain that we provide the right sort of environment for these companies, which are facing fierce global competition. I call on the Secretary of State to do everything in his power to ensure that we create a level playing field and a welcoming environment that gives companies the confidence to invest further. We have seen a dramatic fall in unemployment in Llanelli over the past 10 years, but we cannot be complacent. We know that every company must plan and think ahead and we want investment to come to us, and not go elsewhere.
	I would like to emphasise the importance of creating the right environment to encourage investment. Corus in my constituency has up-to-date equipment and, at the home of the first canned beer on this side of the Atlantic, we now have a sophisticated plant producing all manner of packaging. We also have the company Schaefler, which makes car components. It has taken the skills agenda on board and done a tremendous amount of upskilling of its work force. By doing that, it has been able to diversify and compete against its sister factories in other countries to win contracts for Wales. I would like to emphasise the need for us to develop the skills agenda in Wales because it is quite clearly the way forward for such companies.
	I would also like to mention a small company called Picton Sports, which has been able to make wonderful logos on t-shirts and jumpers for sports organisations locally. But, most excitingly, it is now exporting to Taiwan, a real achievement. This is an example of a new industry and we need to be absolutely certain that we do not help such firms only in the initial phases, when they are struggling to establish themselves. We must help them to expand and cope with some of the complications that they may encounter when they try to export across the world. These must be our priorities for ensuring the strength of the Welsh economy in the future.

Stephen Crabb: I am very pleased to provide the final Back-Bench contribution to this afternoon's St. David's day debate, which has been interesting. I was particularly impressed with the speech made by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Davies). It is fantastic that we have people like him in this Houseslightly different MPs who are free from the complexities of carrying a party label and can be a pure and authentic voice for their communities. That was demonstrated in his strong contribution.
	I was also impressed by the speech made by my neighbour in west Wales, the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger), who is no longer in his place. He brought his expertise to bear, particularly in his analysis of the impact of the increase in fuel prices on our community in west Wales in terms of the increase in fuel poverty and the impact on the private sector.
	For me, the man of the match is the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who made a powerful speech warning of the dangers of separatism. No matter where one stands in the devolution debate, we must take that message on board. There is no question in my mind but that separatism forms the beating heart of much of the current rhetoric from Cardiff bay, but it will provide the glide path to poverty and decline for Wales. We are stronger as part of a strong United Kingdom. That does not mean that I am against devolutionI am not a Conservative party member who calls for the abolition of the Welsh Assemblybut I sign up to the warning expressed by the right hon. Member for Islwyn this afternoon about the dangers of separatism for Wales in the long term.
	I want to discuss two challenges for the Welsh economy. One of them has already been discussed in some detail namely, the skills of the work force in Wales. I want to discuss what needs to happen to upskill the work force to prepare us for the challenges of globalisation so that Wales can benefit from the opportunities offered by globalisation and the new kinds of jobs that will be available in post-industrial countries, such as Wales.
	The fall in unemployment in Wales in recent years is a good thing. Conservative Members do not deny the long-term fall in structural unemployment in Wales in the past 10 to 15 years, which is welcome. However, we must recognise the stubbornly high level of people claiming incapacity benefit and the problem of worklessness. Office for National Statistics figures suggest that in the past 12 months the proportion of people who are economically inactive in Wales has edged up to almost 25 per cent.almost 25 per cent. of the work force in Wales is economically inactive, when we near as damn it have full employment in this country.
	As for young people who are not in education, employment or training, I cannot understand how, at a time when more and more jobs are being created in both the private and public sectors, a growing pool of young people in this country, and particularly in Wales, are effectively doing nothing useful with their lives. I do not understand that situation, which is one of the challenges of our age that we must tackle. Now that he has returned to the Front Bench at the Wales Office, I encourage the new Secretary of State to discuss the issue in detail with his colleagues at Cardiff bay and here at Westminster to focus efforts on tackling that hard-core of young people who indulge in antisocial behaviour and criminality, which have been mentioned this afternoon. We need to direct resources to tackle that problem.
	The other challenge for the economy concerns infrastructure. I disagree with the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire, who said that investment has been going into infrastructure in Wales. Yes, investment has gone into certain places, but we have not seen high quality, new infrastructure, which is needed throughout the Principality. Every year, the Institute of Civil Engineers produces a state of the nation report that analyses progress on improving infrastructure up and down the country. Every year, it identifies critical weaknesses in infrastructure in Wales. If I can be parochial for a moment, I shall point out that one critical weakness in Welsh infrastructure is the A40, which runs through my constituency and connects the east-west corridor through Wales to Ireland via the ferry service from Fishguard to Rosslare. The A40 is part of the strategic trans-European road network. People from Ireland have told me that the worst section of the strategic trans-European route is the section of the A40 that runs through Pembrokeshire.
	There has for many years been a campaign drawing attention to the need to dual the A40to upgrade that bit of road infrastructure. Unfortunately, despite pleas from the private sector and all the principal employers in Pembrokeshire for that piece of road to be dualled, the Welsh Assembly still closes its ears. It is not interested in discussing that. I ask the new Secretary of State to raise the issue with his colleagues in the Welsh Assembly. It forms an important part of the infrastructure of Wales, linking not only to the ferry port in Fishguard but to Milford Haven, which is now one of the UK's most important oil and gas ports with the two new liquefied natural gas terminals being built there, and to one of the most exciting new tourism projects in the UK: the Bluestone project in the constituency of the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire. That will create 600 jobs, and it will bring new people to Wales, which will place further burdens on the road infrastructure, so there is a need to improve it.
	Let me turn from physical infrastructure to the need for virtual infrastructure, and specifically broadband. I know we have been around the houses on this matter over the years, but there is still a problem in rural Wales with lack of access to broadband. The Government said at the start of the week that they needed to look at their role in the roll-out of super high-speed broadband throughout the UK, but parts of Wales are still stuck trying to get access even to simple, slow broadband. British Telecom has received significant sums of public money over the past 10 yearstens of millions of pounds from the taxpayerto enable it to upgrade exchanges and to help in rolling out broadband in rural areas. In Wales, it has received more than 5 million.
	Back in 2002, BT was claiming that thanks to the upgrading of exchanges by 2005 there would be 100 per cent. potential access to broadband in Wales. That has not happened because achieving that is about not only upgrading the exchanges, but improving the lines from exchanges to houses. Far too many houses in rural Wales are forced to have shared linesa digital access carrier system that prevents them from accessing broadband. There is an important question that needs to be addressed: if true economic revitalisation is to come to hard-to-reach, peripheral areas such as mine, broadband will be part of the solution, and there is serious work to do to make sure that those parts of Wales can access such technology.
	Finally, let me say a few words about fuel prices. Last week, I spoke to two major hauliers in my constituency. It has become unfashionable in this place to speak up in defence of the haulage industry when there is so much emphasis on climate change, but we need to speak up for it. Road haulage is not going to go away, but British haulage companies could go away, to be replaced by foreign competitors who are able to buy fuel with significantly lower rates of duty attached. The last time I was at Cardiff West service station, it looked like a lorry park for Willi Betz as there were so many lorries from Germany there. There is an increasing number of foreign lorries and haulage operators on Welsh roads.
	Welsh haulage companies are finding it increasingly hard to compete in what is a very difficult marketplace. One of the reasons why it is difficult is the huge increase in fuel costs. Let me make another plea to the Secretary of State: when he discusses potential changes in the Budget with his Cabinet colleagues, will he caution against the extra 2p increase in fuel duty in April? Welsh hauliers need that like they need a hole in the head at this time. There is a good case for holding off from that increase in duty.

David Jones: This has been a typically stimulating, diverse and wide-ranging St. David's day debate. We have heard about matters as diverse as the Llanelli flooding forum and the fascinating-sounding Wikideddfu website, which I assure the House I shall log on to the instant this debate is over.
	The debate was predictably dominated by devolution and the delivery of public services. Those issues were encapsulated in the Secretary of State's remark that the system for conferring devolution upon the Welsh Assembly is complicated, but the importance is not in the process but in the services delivered by it. Everyone in the House would echo thatsome, perhaps, more loudly than others.
	It was a pleasure to see the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) in the Chamber again, and I add my welcome to him. He will perhaps be surprised to hear that I cannot adopt my usual abrasive style when responding to his remarks, because I agreed with a great many of them. He rightly said that it is necessary that Wales should grow the private sector, mentioning that he wished it to account for 55 per cent. of Welsh GDP. The Welsh economy's reliance on the public sector over the years has been marked. It is therefore strange that the Welsh Assembly Government, in fulfilling their obligations on the Welsh economy, decided to abolish the Welsh Development Agency, which was a paragon in attracting inward investment to Wales, and absorb it into the mechanics of the Welsh Assembly Government.
	The right hon. Gentleman was also right to say that Wales cannot expect to be a low-wage economy, because we simply cannot compete with the far east on labour coststhe right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) echoed the fact that Wales needs high-tech, high quality jobs. To that extent, the right hon. Member for Neath was right to stress the importance of universities. Those of us on the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs who visited China last autumn saw how its universities sector is an integral part of the Chinese economy's development. We could learn much from that. He will be surprised to hear it, but he and I are ad idem on a great many matters this afternoon.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) made an interesting speech in which he referred to the need for watertight devolution in order to withstand an imminent Conservative Government. The suggestion appeared to be that the Liberal Democrats wish powers to be stockpiled in Cardiff bay to prepare for the day when the evil Tories take over once again. He also uttered the memorable remark, which will be entered in the big boy's book of Liberal Democrat quotations, I am all for making the present system work, but I am also all for changing it. Only a Liberal Democrat could utter that remark with a straight face.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire also referred to the need to review the Barnett formula. At that stage, an interesting internal debate took place between him and his colleagues, the hon. Members for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), about how that could best be achieved. We did not intrude too much on their private grief.
	Typically, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) made an interesting contribution. As we have heard, he is Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee. As a member of that Committee, I value his chairmanship and I pay tribute to his hard work over the past months, particularly given the extra work imposed on the Committee by the process of scrutinising legislative competence orders. That is an important function, but we are going through a learning curve. He said as much when he remarked that, like the French revolution, it was too early to tell how it was progressingI think that is what he said. The learning curve is a steep one and we have not yet negotiated it fully. The first legislative competence order was a difficult process, and parliamentarians were heavily criticised by certain members of the Welsh Assembly Government for not nodding it through. I do not believe that it is any part of the function of parliamentarians to rubber stamp legislative competence orders, and I suspect that the Secretary of State and I are at one on that. It is necessary that LCOs receive proper scrutiny from this place, but they are only one of 13 methods so far identified of conferring competence on the Welsh Assembly.
	The other major weapon that is used to confer competence is the framework power contained in UK-wide bills. In that respect, I wish to draw the Secretary of State's attention to the troubling experience of the Planning Bill. It now contains Welsh framework powers, but they were not in the Bill when it was first introduced or on Second Reading. In fact, they did not appear until amendments were tabled towards the end of the Committee stage, which ran to 18 sittings. Those powers, therefore, had less than half an hour's scrutiny in Committee and I am sure that everyone would agree that that is not acceptable. I entreat the Secretary of State to consider that and see whether the process can be improved in the future.
	We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) who made a wide-ranging speech, covering such matters as the local authority funding formula, the health service in his constituency and policing. He spoke with some authority as not only a member of the Home Affairs Committee, but a special constableand an assiduous special constable at that.
	The hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger) referred to the concerns of his constituency and fuel poverty. He said that fuel poverty was likely to increase and suggested that there should be no surcharge on prepayment meters. He called, possibly controversially, for a top-sliced levy on the excess profits of energy companies. No doubt the Secretary of State will consider that and refer the matter to his Cabinet colleagues.
	My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) also made a wide-ranging speech and was assiduous in making contributions to the debate throughout the afternoon. He referred to his childhood in Wales and to his experience as a Marches MP. He also mentioned the importance of tourism as an integral part of the Welsh economy. Indeed, only this week, the Wales Tourism Alliance held a reception in the House. British tourism week is also fast approaching. It is perhaps unfortunate that the Welsh Assembly Government decided in their wisdom to absorb the Wales tourist board into the apparatus of government, so that we now have VisitWales. We also have VisitBritain, which is operated by the same people who operate EnjoyEngland. The Wales Tourism Alliance suggested that there was a conflict of interest between VisitWales and VisitBritain, and perhaps that matter could be revisited.  [ Laughter. ]

John Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Jones: I do not have the time, but I am sure that it was going to be a good joke.
	The right hon. Member for Islwyn gave the impression of not being a wholehearted supporter of devolution, but perhaps I do him an injustice. I agreed with him entirely when he stressed the Britishness of the people of Wales. I am sure that almost every hon. Member would agree that we are entirely comfortable with the concept of being both British and Welsh or, if one prefers, Welsh and British. It does not really matter in which order one puts them; it is very much the same thing. Possibly there are a couple of exceptions in the Chamber, but that is their private grief. He also said that we should not be doing too much navel-gazing about constitutional matters in Wales, and that we need to invest in upskilling. He is, of course, entirely right. He ended with dire warnings about the threats posed by separatism to the integrity of the United Kingdom.
	Thentalking of separatismwe heard from the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who accused the right hon. Member for Islwyn of possibly talking Wales down, but who then made a bleak and gloomy speech about the woes facing Wales. However, he did make a perfectly valid point about post office closures. He is right that particularly in rural areas, the post office is the focal point of the community. It is perhaps surprising that we heard only today that Cabinet members are presiding over the closure process while pleading at a domestic level for the survival of post offices in their own constituencies.
	The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) made a speech in which he referred to the delivery of cross-border services. He is entirely right that in north Wales we depend heavily on cross-border services, particularly medical services. I echo what he sayswe rely on the services of such important institutions as the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt hospital in Oswestry, Alder Hey children's hospital, the Walton centre in Fazakerley, the Clatterbridge centre, the Christie hospital and so onbut I remind him gently, as I did in my intervention, that the concerns about Walton were generated by remarks made by the Labour Health Minister in the Welsh Assembly. Perhaps, as he has such influence, he could have a gentle word with her and point out that the concerns have not gone away entirely.
	The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Davies) made a speech in which he referred to the concerns of his constituency, and he mentioned incapacity benefit and expressed anxiety about the Government's approach to it. He also banged the drum for the south Wales valleys and said that they had great tourism potential. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) made a speech in which he referred to his constituency and the exciting pioneering work done by Welsh researchers in biotechnology. He also mentioned his concerns about drugs and drug policy. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Anne Main) spoke about her childhood in Wales and the regeneration of Cardiff, which we all welcome. However, she sounded a cautionary note when she referred to social problems that she had observed and the need for stronger policing. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) discussed the important development of the military training academy at St. Athan and the opportunities that it would afford for the local economy. He has campaigned for that development for some years.
	The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) referred to his interesting website, Wikideddfu, and spoke of the need for a new Welsh Language Act. We in the Conservative party yield to no one in our support for the Welsh languageit was that distinguished Welsh Conservative, Lord Roberts of Conway, who steered the Welsh Language Act 1993 through Parliamentbut I must say despite that fact that we must be careful that any further developments in Welsh language legislation do not have an impact on business or amount to non-tariff barriers to private enterprise.
	The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) made an interesting and erudite speech about climate change and flooding problems, referring to the important work of the Llanelli flooding forum. Finally, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) echoed the words of the right hon. Member for Islwyn on the dangers of separatism and spoke of the challenges to the Welsh economy, the blight of economic inactivity and the need to improve infrastructure, particularly in his constituency.
	We have had an interesting, wide-ranging debate, illustrating not only the important issues facing the people of Wales, but the diversity of the interests of those who represent them. It is an occasion on which all of us, of whatever party, can celebrate our Welshness. For Saturday, I wish everybody dydd gwyl Ddewi da.

Huw Irranca-Davies: It gives me great pleasure to speak as a Front Bencher in the Wales day debate for the first time. It is a great privilege to be a Welsh Member of Parliament, and an enormous privilege to address the hon. Members present today.
	There has been much talk of the St. David's day event held earlier today in the chapel of St. Mary Undercroft. The preface of the notes for the event mentions St. David. He followed the Egyptian desert monks' rule, which had a strong emphasis on hard work, abstinence from alcohol and refraining from unnecessary speech. There has certainly been no unnecessary speech today, there has been no alcohol in the Chamber, and there has been a lot of hard work. This has been a temperate, well-considered and well-informed debate. As our discussions have demonstrated, there is an enormous amount going on in Wales to celebrate. These are challenging but interesting times, and Wales is in an excellent position to weather the times ahead.
	Partnerships are the key. The Government, working alongside the Welsh Assembly Governmentand local government, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State saidhave put in place 1,700 more teachers and 5,700 more school support staff than there were in 1998. There are 500 more consultants and over 8,000 more qualified nurses than in 1997, and 129,000 more people in employment in Wales than there were in 1997. I am not complacent, but it was refreshing that Members from all parts of the Chamber recognised today that many good things are going on in Wales.
	I shall try to do justice, in a very short time, to all hon. Members who spoke, so I ask hon. Members to bear with me, and I apologise if I miss out any points. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was the first to speak, and he did so eloquently. He paid tribute, as did others, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) and the many kinds of work that he has done in government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also touched on the St. David's day event. At one point, it looked as though the debate was turning into A Question of Sport, as we talked about the Olympics and the Ryder cup among other things, but it was very enjoyable.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) talked about the important role of servicemen and woman, and there is wholehearted agreement on that point across the House. She also talked about support for the defence training academy. I assure her that the Wales Office and the Welsh Assembly Government fully support moving ahead with that proposal. She also talked about a new chapter in the devolution processsomething that we find exciting and challengingand challenges for the Wales Office. To echo sentiments expressed today, our Department, like Wales, is small but clever.
	The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) and others touched on the theme of the full scrutiny of legislation. We will never be in the business of rubber-stamping any legislation that comes along. We are always open to improving and reviewing how we carry out that scrutiny, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is keen to do so. We have to recognise where we are in the devolution settlement, and the good measures that we have brought forward, including pre-briefings with Welsh Assembly Government and Wales Office Ministers, Public Bill Committee pre-scrutiny and evidence sessions, and the provision of ample time in Committee to discuss, through the usual channels, Welsh MPs sitting on Committees for Bills in which there are framework powers.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham raised the issue of Welsh identity. As many others have said, I am content to say that I am Welsh, British and European; that is sufficient. I do not agonise over it at all, and I do not think that Members need do so. The hon. Lady mentioned the Welsh-language paper,  Y Byd . The Welsh Assembly Government announced on 5 February that it will provide 600,000 in the next three years to fulfil the commitment in the One Wales document. That is in addition to the 173,000 currently being spent by the Welsh Assembly Government, through the Welsh Books Council, to support all Welsh-language newspapers and magazines. We will see what comes forward as a result of that.
	In his excellent contribution, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath rightly recognised the importance of Labour's investment in the public sector in Wales, and challenged the private sector to grow through ambition and with support from Government for competitiveness and innovation. He spoke about new Merthyrs for this century, competing not on cost, but on high skills, innovation, investment in research and development, the buy-in from the university sector, the environmental industries, and internationalism. His speech reflected the determination of my right hon. Friend and of the Government to tackle the legacy of economic inactivity, a theme taken up by many other speakers.
	My right hon. Friend spoke about how much we have done to raise employment levels, and what we still have to do to help people who can work back into work to release the dynamism in the Welsh economy. It was an excellent foray from the Labour Benches and a demonstration of his continuing political and intellectual intent and ability to drive Wales forward. He rightly praised, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), the excellent work of Neath Port Talbot council, and called for a can-do Wales. That came from a can-do Member of the House.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not being passionate about devolution, being a devo-realist, and his credentials. What my right hon. Friend is passionate about is delivering for the people of Wales. I agree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire about building up the partnership. Part of that is respecting the devolution settlement, and deepening, not broadening it. That is crucial.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the convention. We wait to see how that develops. On Barnett, the Welsh Assembly Government are conducting a review to assess the impact and explore possibilities, but the extra spending per person in Wales is significant. The nearly 130 per cent. increase in the block grant since 1997 cannot be discounted, and it did not happen by accident. It happened because we voted it through in this place. On cross-border issues, I welcome the interest, particularly of late. The Welsh Affairs Committee, under the excellent stewardship of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, will examine a range of cross-border issues of vital concern, as the devolution settlement matures.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire spoke about pensioners in Wales. Although there is always more that can be done, it is important to remember what we have delivered, including winter fuel payments of 200, and 300 for those over 80, the free TV licence and the pension credit guarantee, which has increased. We are determined to deliver for pensioners in Wales and we will continue to do so.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, in his excellent contribution, highlighted the importance of the role of the Secretary of State in Cabinet and in British-Irish relations. He spoke about Wales as being not a fortress Wales, but an outward-looking and internationalist Wales, a global Wales, and he is absolutely right.
	The new Order in Council process has been the subject of some discussion. As my hon. Friend said, we were at an early stage of this new democratic process. I know that the Select Committee and the Wales Office are keen to monitor the process and the volume and see how we can make improvements along the way. We are all agreed on the necessity of making the process work. There is no better example of the importance of Welsh MPs to this place and of the role of this place in scrutiny than the work that is being carried out by all members of the Welsh Affairs Committee.
	The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) made a passionate case for English votes for English laws. We will have to agree to disagree on that. Some of the arguments for that were demolished, I understand, by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). The armed forces and historic regiments, particularly in Monmouth, were also covered by the hon. Member for Monmouth in his contribution. He is right to say that we should not only treasure, but properly safeguard the servicemen and women in those regiments.
	The hon. Gentleman's background in the policing scheme and his role as a special constable came to the fore. He welcomed the Flanagan report, in which there is much to be welcomed, and he offered a couple of interesting suggestions for improvements on it, which I am sure will have been heard during the debate and by Home Office Ministers. He also spoke about vocational skills in prisons. We are concerned to ensure that those who go through our prison system come out with the skills that they need to go back into wider society.
	Like a number of other hon. Members, the hon. Member for Monmouth spoke about the local government revenue settlement. There are always difficulties with such settlements and the distribution formula, but we must accept that the changes were the subject of significant consultation and were agreed with local authorities through the Welsh Local Government Association.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger) made an excellent contribution. He talked about the way in which his constituency in west Wales and wider west Wales had been transformed in the last decade, something that we see in all constituencies, on the bread and butter issues of hospitals, schools and infrastructure and the falls in unemployment, and he was absolutely right. He majored on renewable energy and what we can make of it, which is a critical issue for Wales. The Wales Office, like the Welsh Assembly Government, is committed to driving that forward.
	The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) talked about bullying in schools. All schools in Wales must by law have a written anti-bullying policy and the Assembly issues a document entitled Respecting Others: Anti-Bullying Guidance to all schools and LEAs. It is a major issue and the Assembly Government are keen to continue improving the way in which they tackle it. He also talked about cross-border issues and promoting tourism in Wales, which is close to my heart. I am sure that as he travels around Wales, not least in his role as a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee and with his knowledge of Wales, he will recognise in the dramatic changes in the architecture of Wales and the focus on the big country of Wales what great potential we have for driving forward tourism. He also welcomed the significant investment in rail in Wales. We have issues with rail in Wales, but we have invested in the valleys lines and in north and south Wales. For the first time in years we are putting money into rail.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) talked about not having policy difference for the sake of it, and he is absolutely right. What is important is the value added; the difference that is made on the streets of Blackwood in Gwent and of Maesteg. He elaborated on his theme of a constitutional cul-de-sac, and he emphasised the need to focus on bread and butter issues on Blackwood high street. He talked tellingly about the importance of using objective 1 money to drive forward earnings, employment and the economy. I thoroughly agree with him. We have to make good use of it. My right hon. Friend alluded to Cicero, which we do not often hear in the Chamber. A senator remarked that when Cicero spoke they would say how well he had spoken, but when Demosthenes spoke they said, Let's march. My right hon. Friend combines both attributes, getting people to the barricades to make a difference on the streets of Blackwood.
	The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) spoke of HMRC and the DWP, and issues around job restructuring. Up to June 2007, the Gershon review has delivered over 2,700 posts relocated to Wales, but he has genuine concerns about HMRC, as do other Members, and we await tomorrow's announcement. One of the focuses of DWP reform was to deliver more front-end staff. As part of the Lyons review, 1,261 DWP posts are being relocated from London to the south-east and Wales.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) spoke passionately on behalf of his constituents, drawing on his background. He referred to the Health Commission Wales, which is currently under review by the Welsh Assembly Government, and he spoke eloquently on the subject of higher education funding, failing only to mention his singular support for the North East Wales institute of higher education and its application for university status, which we all wish well. He advanced many ideas on higher education reform, which I know will be drawn to the attention of UK Ministers and the Labour party.
	The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Davies) speaks regularly and forcefully on issues that directly affect his constituents, not least on training and industry. He talked about the Barnett formula, which I have mentioned, and he will recognise the increased allocation to Wales that we have delivered. He also addressed the important issue of incapacity benefit, which has exercised a number of hon. Members today. We have more to do on that, and we will do it with the people that we represent. He referred to the importance in that regard of working with GPs and employers and with the one-to-one approach that we piloted through the pathways project.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) gave his own inimitable welcome to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and talked about how Newport is leading the way in biosciences and cell technology, which was excellent to hear. I share his optimism that much of what is happening in Wales is very good.
	The hon. Member for St. Albans (Anne Main) talked about her links with Wales, for which she had an optimistic vision. She talked about the Select Committee for the regions. The Modernisation Committee is conducting a review of regional accountability and is taking evidence on that at the moment. It hopes to report in the next two months.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) once again advocated the role for St. Athan; it does a brilliant job.
	In the coming months, I am sure that there will be long discussions about furthering the devolution settlement, but we must not let them overshadow the real issues for the people of Wales. Employment, health care and education are the things that really matter to the people of Wales. Those are the things that they look to us to deliver. And by Westminster and Wales working together

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise that I can say that only in English.
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion lapsed, without Question put.

CONCENTRATED SOLAR POWER

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Howard Stoate: I feel privileged to be given the opportunity to raise this extremely important issue tonight. Concentrated solar power is a concept of literally dazzling simplicity. It is an idea so simple, and with such extraordinary promise as a means of power generation, that it seems astonishing that in Europe we are only just waking up to its potential, more than 20 years after its first use in California.
	The technology is very straightforward. A CSP plant uses mirrors to concentrate sunlight and create heat. The resultant heat is then used to drive turbines and generators, just like in a conventional power station. Heat can also be stored in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue at night or on cloudy days. For once, no amount of hyperbole is excessive. CSP represents, as  The Guardian stated recently,
	A vast source of energy that holds the promise of a carbon-free, nuclear-free electrical future for the whole of Europe, if not the world.
	I could not put it better myself. In terms of its scale, therefore, CSP is a world away from the concept of solar photovoltaic technology such as the domestic roof-top solar panels with which we are more familiar in this country. The only issue with CSP is that it needs direct sunshine, and lots of it, to maximise its potential. Needless to say, it is not a technology that we will be seeing too much of in Dartfordor even, dare I say it, in Croydon, North.
	Europe's first commercially operating CSP plant has just opened in Spain, just outside Seville. It currently generates about 11 MW of electricityenough to power up to 6,000 homesbut its operators hope that it will eventually produce sufficient power to meet the needs of Seville's 600,000 residents. The deserts of north Africa, however, offer us the greatest potential as far as CSP is concerned. Each year, each square kilometre of hot desert receives solar energy equivalent to 1.5 million barrels of oil. Indeed, it has been calculated that we could produce the world's entire electricity needs by covering less than 1 per cent. of the world's deserts with CSP plants.
	Desert-based CSP plants have the added advantage of allowing fresh water for crop cultivation and land irrigation to be created through the desalination of sea water using simply the waste heat from the CSP plants. The partially shaded areas under the solar mirrors also have many potential uses, including crop cultivation. It is even possible to imagine some energy-intensive industries choosing to locate in deserts to take advantage of CSP technology.
	The key to realising CSP's potential, however, is finding a reliable and above all cost-effective means of getting the power from the deserts to major population centres in Europe and elsewhere. The technology does now exist. Using high-voltage direct current, or HVDC, transmission lines, it is feasible and cost-effective to transmit electricity for more than 3,000 km. With modern high-voltage DC transmission, only about 3 per cent. of power is lost for each 1,000 km. That means, for instance, that solar electricity could be imported from north Africa to London with a loss of power of only about 10 per cent. That compares extremely favourably with the 50 to 70 per cent. losses that have been accepted for many years in conventional alternating-current grids. Moreover, it has been calculated that 90 per cent. of the world's population live within 2,700 km of a hot desert and could be supplied with solar energy from there.
	The Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Co-operation, or TRECa group of scientists and engineers in Europe, the middle east and north Africais trying to identify ways of exploiting the energy-generating potential of hot deserts. TREC is calling for the creation of an HVDC supergrid to enable the transmission across the region of energy derived from north African CSP plants.
	Like a significant number of hon. Members, I strongly support the case for an HVDC grid. Such a supergrid could allow energy from other renewable sources to be transmitted across Europe. Britain could put in wind power, Norway hydropower and central Europe biomass and geothermal power. An HVDC supergrid could also be integrated relatively easily with existing HVAChigh-voltage alternating currenttransmission grids. The potential is so large that one may consider the possibility of extending the use of clean solar electricity into areas where gas, oil and coal are currently the dominant sources of energy. It would, for example, be perfectly feasible to expand the use of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, extend the electrification of railways, make greater use of electricity-powered heat pumps, and so on.
	Apart from the importing of solar electricity from desert regions, the proposed HVDC supergrid has several other advantages. The chief one is the security of energy supply: a shortfall in any one area could be met by spare capacity in another area or another country. It would also reduce wastage: surplus power in any one area could simply be transferred to where it is needed. Conversely, the impact of the variability of certain renewable technologies such as wind power could be reduced by being able to integrate supply across a wide area. The supergrid could also allow the UK to become a net exporter of clean electricity from our wide array of renewable sources, such as wind, waves and tidal power, which we possess in abundance. The economic opportunities that that would create for the UK are considerable.
	Of course, set-up costs are considerable. The estimated cost of a Europe, middle east and north Africa-wide HVDC supergrid comprising 20 transmission lines of about 5 GW each is about 45 billion, while the approximate cost of two 5 GW transmission lines between north Africa and the UK is about 5 billion. However, given that those costs would be shared among several countries and spread over many years, the cost to the UK Government would be reasonable. It is an investment that will begin to look more and more attractive over time as the cost of generating power from renewable sources fallsassuming, of course, that the right package of incentives is put in placewhile world oil prices look certain to rise still further as oil becomes scarcer and more difficult to extract, quite apart from the obvious imperative to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
	There is a pressing need for concerted governmental action to promote CSP and pave the way for an HVDC grid. Although CSP plants are being built and HVDC transmission lines are being installed, actions and changes in policies are needed to remove unnecessary obstacles and smooth the path for such developments. Those changes are needed mainly at the level of the European Union or beyond, but there are things that can be done in the UK. The UK Government can also help to influence the nature of decisions taken in the EU and elsewhere.
	The first issue that needs to be tackled is the use of overt or hidden subsidies for non-renewable sources of energy. In a report published in 2004, the New Economics Foundation made a conservative estimate that worldwide subsidies for fossil fuels amounted to about $235 billion a year, and not much seems to have changed since then. Those kinds of support for old-style sources of power have the effect of tilting the playing field against the renewable sources of energy, including solar power, that we now so urgently need. All such subsidies should be removed.
	The second challenge is to ensure that a proper price is paid for CO2 emissions. To a large extent, users of fossil fuels are still being allowed to use the atmosphere as a free dumping ground for carbon dioxidethat must stop. The European emissions trading scheme has to work better than it has done up until now. In addition, there is a good case for introducing a system of tradable personal carbon allowances throughout the EU and beyond.
	Thirdly, we have to ensure that the right framework of incentives is in place to encourage the growth of the renewable sector. Although CSP has quite a long history, its development has been held back because historically fossil fuels have been cheap. That means that it has not yet achieved the economies of scale and refinements in technology that will bring prices down, as is beginning to happen with wind power. If overt and hidden subsidies are removed from non-renewable sources of power, and if a proper price is charged for CO2 emissions, that will make a big difference to the economics. However, there may still be a need for some short to medium-term support for renewable sources of power, including CSP, in the form of feed-in tariffs. That system has proved to be very successful in Germany and Spain. By contrast, the UK's system of renewables obligation certificates has so far failed to produce the expansion of renewables that we so desperately need. Moreover, if countries in Europe, north Africa and the middle east are to benefit from the CSP technologies, an international framework of feed-in tariffs will probably be needed.
	Fourthly, we have to create a single market for electricity throughout Europe and beyond. It should be possible for any customer in the UK to buy solar power from any supplier in north Africa and the middle east in the same way that anyone in the UK can buy electricity from any UK supplier. Both the British Government and the European Commission are in favour of such development within the EU, but that does mean unbundling power generation from power transmission. They need encouragement to make that reform in the face of powerful economic interests that currently enjoy monopolistic benefits from the vertical integration of power generation with power transmission. Although the single market for electricity that exists within the EU would be a great help, it would be even better if it were extended beyond Europe to the middle east and north Africa.
	Finally, we have to put in place the necessary policies to allow for the creation of a single, integrated high-voltage DC grid across the whole of Europe, the middle east and north Africa, or at the every least across the EU. At present, HVDC lines are commissioned on a case-by-case basis without reference to any overarching plan. It would be better if the EU, in collaboration with countries in north Africa and the middle east, decided to take the lead in terms of building the HVDC supergrid across the region. A good second-best would be a Europe-wide supergrid.
	It would probably be best if such a project were funded by several national Governments, which is feasible. We could not integrate the road networks throughout Europe without each country paying its own share, and the same thing could easily be envisaged for a HVDC supergrid. There is no reason why such a grid could not be up and running within 10 to 15 years if it got the right type of governmental backing. It could be done much sooner than that if we simply integrated the existing AC grid and upgraded it to the necessary standard. I am told that that could be achieved in five years.
	It is also possible to plan, design and build CSP plants fairly quickly, certainly compared with the process for conventional power plants. The lead-in time for building a CSP plant is about one year and the building time is about three years. Achieving that goal in the UK will require our Government, together with our partners in Europe, to make a strong commitment to CSP and the creation of an HVDC grid. Given the strong economic case made in the Stern report for strong, early action to combat climate change, I suggest that the Government have to act immediately.
	I know from the comments made in the media by my hon. Friend the Minister that he shares much of my enthusiasm for CSP and that he appreciates the strong case for an HVDC grid. He has, however, expressed concerns about the long-term security of CSP energy derived from desert plants. While I understand those concerns, I do not necessarily share them. The first point to bear in mind is that CSP, even if we manage to exploit just a tiny fraction of its potential as an energy source, will help to increase substantially available energy supplies and thus diminish the risk of a global grab for energy.
	Large-scale CSP production would also add to the global diversity of energy sources and reduce our reliance on conventional fuels. Oil is concentrated in a few small regions, but hot deserts and other areas with high levels of direct sunlight are widely distributed in the world, meaning that no country need be overly dependent on a few sources. The whole of the Mediterranean basin, for instance, has potential as a source of CSP production. It would be very difficult therefore to end up with an OPEC-style solar cartel.
	If Europe were to rely on transmission lines for the import of electricity from the middle east and north Africa, those could feasibly be targets for terrorists. But the transmission grid can be designed to accommodate damage in much the same way that the internet was designed to be resilient in the face of military attack. Rather than rely on a few large transmission lines, electricity may be transmitted over an interconnected grid of smaller lines. That means that electricity can always bypass difficult or damaged parts of the network. If necessary, transmission lines may be buried underground or laid under water where they would be much less vulnerable to attack. Airtricity, for example, has proposed a supergrid of this type across the whole of Europe, composed entirely of buried cables.
	In short, while we need to think through the energy security implications of expanding CSP production, we should not exaggerate them, or allow them to detract from the very strong argument before us in favour of CSP and the creation an HVDC grid.
	I hope that the Minister will use today's debate to underline his support for the technology and the creation of a grid, and I hope that he will set out a raft of measures aimed at facilitating the use of CSP in the UK as early as possible. I would like to end my contribution by paying tribute to the work of TREC and its supporters, particularly Dr. Gerry Wolff, TREC's UK co-ordinator, in promoting CSP and the HVDC grid and in putting forward a powerful scientific and environmental case in support of them. Its efforts have done an enormous amount to advance the cause of renewable energy in the UK and throughout Europe.

Malcolm Wicks: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) made interestingperhaps for many people listening, unusualand important points about concentrated solar power and the case for creating a high-voltage direct current grid.
	I came into the Chamber during the earlier debate on WalesI felt that I, as a mere Englishman, was trespassingand I heard a reference to Cicero. To raise the cultural tone of this debatenot that it needs raising, following my hon. Friend's eloquent and evidence-based speechI remember that I once bumped into my hon. Friend, who is a friend in many respects, at a concert by Mr. Bob Dylan. I was searching for a suitable text for today and came up with:
	Early one morning the sun was shining.
	I know that my hon. Friend will listen carefully to my speech but if, by the end of it, he can identify the song, I will be impressed.
	Of course, climate change presents a considerable challenge, which affects us socially, economically and politically, and it requires a paradigm shift in our method of sourcing competitive and reliable energy supplies in future. As my hon. Friend knows, we have a target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. from 1990 levels by 2050. That requires several radical and bold steps.
	I want to reflect on some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised about the specific technology he discussed and to re-emphasise our commitment to developing renewable technologies generally.
	The Government are firmly committed to developing sustainable supplies of renewable energy for the UK and throughout Europe and we want to play our part in encouraging others on an international scale to do the same. The Government are committed to the expansion of renewables, and that sits alongside various other measures that we need to take, including on energy efficiency, civil nuclear power, cleaner use of fossil fuels through carbon capture and storage technology and so on.
	As my hon. Friend said, the world has huge solar resources, on which concentrated solar power technology can clearly draw. I do not want to overstate the case because our role is currently modest, but the UK has participated in several European and international projects that examine the development and marketing of concentrated solar power systems. Work was carried out in the 1990s, when at least two small studies were commissioned on behalf of the then Department of Trade and Industry, and CSP plants now operate in California, Spain and other parts of the world. An organisation called SolarPaces has been set up by the International Energy Agency and is engaged in technology development, pilot projects and promotion in the relevant sunbelt parts of the world. Sadly, my hon. Friend was right to say that they do not include his constituency or mine. However, we in the UK have played our part in the work.
	The debate focuses on the key issue of how the UK could benefit from concentrated solar power. Unfortunately, we do not have sufficient sun resources for that technology in the UK. Therefore, for concentrated solar power to be of value here, it would be necessary to establish the HVDC transmission network that my hon. Friend proposed. I accept the argument that an HVDC network has the potential to deliver energy across long distances with minimal losses. However, building and maintaining an infrastructure of HVDC transmission lines and managing a network that feeds into national grids across Europe is an enormous and expensive task, as my hon. Friend acknowledged.
	My officials have discussed CSP with international counterparts, and there is a general consensus that building the infrastructure would be costly. However, some of our European colleagues are engaged in developing that technology. For example, we believe that support for CSP in Germany is primarily for developing a manufacturing capability, rather than for applying the technology within national borders.
	We believe that fair, open and well regulated markets are the best way for us to achieve the massive investment in the clean energy needed, and to create opportunities for the most efficient and cost-effective technologies and solutions to develop and succeed. Concentrated solar power could have a part to play along with other technologies.
	Here in Britain, the renewables obligationour market mechanism for supporting renewable electricity generationhas, alongside other measures, such as the low-carbon building programme, been successful in nearly doubling renewable generation since it was introduced in 2002. Current Government policy is already set to deliver 1 billion of investment in renewables by 2010. The amount of renewable electricity eligible under the renewables obligation has almost trebled since its introduction, although I recognise that we started from a low base in Britain and that a lot more remains to be done.
	We have also recently given consent to many major renewables projects, including the world's biggest offshore wind farm, the London Array, and more than 20 other wind farms, including three consents issued today, at Keadby in South Yorkshire, Tween bridge in north Lincolnshire, and Gunfleet sands off the coast of Essex. We also recently granted permission for what will be one of the world's largest biomass plants, which will be built in Port Talbot. As my hon. Friend knows, we are taking a hard look at the feasibility of a tidal power project across the Severn estuary and are currently in the stakeholder engagement process. If such a project is feasible, it could generate some 5 per cent. of Great Britain's electricity needs, and from a clean, indigenous resource. A full formal public consultation will take place in early 2010.
	I mention those things because we need a focus on our climate change objectives and a focus on renewable technologies. I have outlined some of the things that have perhaps a more immediate short to medium-term application in Britain. On solar power, we seerather more modestly than my hon. Friendan increasing number of solar panels on the roofs of people's houses, which use a relatively cost-effective renewable technology. We also see the development of something that is as yet more expensive, but still important, namely photovoltaics, which produce not just hot water but electricity. We have a range of technologies that offer hope as we move forward.
	I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will continue to follow developments in concentrated solar power and long-distance electricity transmission. He referred to a number of experts with whom he is in touch. If he has time, I should be happy to meet him and some of his colleagues so that I can become better informed. I again thank my hon. Friend for introducing this relatively novel but certainly very interesting debate about solar power. I congratulate him on his enthusiasm and his strong information base.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Six o'clock.